West Virginia and Kansas had the lowest cost of living across all U.S. states, with composite costs being half of those found in Hawaii. This was according to a composite index that compares prices for various goods and services on a state-by-state basis. In West Virginia, the cost of living index amounted to **** — well below the national benchmark of 100. Virginia— which had an index value of ***** — was only slightly above that benchmark. Expensive places to live included Hawaii, Massachusetts, and California. Housing costs in the U.S. Housing is usually the highest expense in a household’s budget. In 2023, the average house sold for approximately ******* U.S. dollars, but house prices in the Northeast and West regions were significantly higher. Conversely, the South had some of the least expensive housing. In West Virginia, Mississippi, and Louisiana, the median price of the typical single-family home was less than ******* U.S. dollars. That makes living expenses in these states significantly lower than in states such as Hawaii and California, where housing is much pricier. What other expenses affect the cost of living? Utility costs such as electricity, natural gas, water, and internet also influence the cost of living. In Alaska, Hawaii, and Connecticut, the average monthly utility cost exceeded *** U.S. dollars. That was because of the significantly higher prices for electricity and natural gas in these states.

DPH note about change from 7-day to 14-day metrics: As of 10/15/2020, this dataset is no longer being updated. Starting on 10/15/2020, these metrics will be calculated using a 14-day average rather than a 7-day average. The new dataset using 14-day averages can be accessed here: https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-case-rate-per-100-000-population-and-perc/hree-nys2 As you know, we are learning more about COVID-19 all the time, including the best ways to measure COVID-19 activity in our communities. CT DPH has decided to shift to 14-day rates because these are more stable, particularly at the town level, as compared to 7-day rates. In addition, since the school indicators were initially published by DPH last summer, CDC has recommended 14-day rates and other states (e.g., Massachusetts) have started to implement 14-day metrics for monitoring COVID transmission as well. With respect to geography, we also have learned that many people are looking at the town-level data to inform decision making, despite emphasis on the county-level metrics in the published addenda. This is understandable as there has been variation within counties in COVID-19 activity (for example, rates that are higher in one town than in most other towns in the county). This dataset includes a weekly count and weekly rate per 100,000 population for COVID-19 cases, a weekly count of COVID-19 PCR diagnostic tests, and a weekly percent positivity rate for tests among people living in community settings. Dates are based on date of specimen collection (cases and positivity). A person is considered a new case only upon their first COVID-19 testing result because a case is defined as an instance or bout of illness. If they are tested again subsequently and are still positive, it still counts toward the test positivity metric but they are not considered another case. These case and test counts do not include cases or tests among people residing in congregate settings, such as nursing homes, assisted living facilities, or correctional facilities. These data are updated weekly; the previous week period for each dataset is the previous Sunday-Saturday, known as an MMWR week (https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/document/MMWR_week_overview.pdf). The date listed is the date the dataset was last updated and corresponds to a reporting period of the previous MMWR week. For instance, the data for 8/20/2020 corresponds to a reporting period of 8/9/2020-8/15/2020. Notes: 9/25/2020: Data for Mansfield and Middletown for the week of Sept 13-19 were unavailable at the time of reporting due to delays in lab reporting.

Coordinate system Update:Notably, this dataset will be provided in NAD 83 Connecticut State Plane (2011) (EPSG 2234) projection, instead of WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere (EPSG 3857) which is the coordinate system of the 2023 dataset and will remain in Connecticut State Plane moving forward.Ownership Suppression and Data Access:The updated dataset now includes parcel data for all towns across the state, with some towns featuring fully suppressed ownership information. In these instances, the owner’s name will be replaced with the label "Current Owner," the co-owner’s name will be listed as "Current Co-Owner," and the mailing address will appear as the property address itself. For towns with suppressed ownership data, users should be aware that there was no "Suppression" field in the submission to verify specific details. This measure was implemented this year to help verify compliance with Suppression.New Data Fields:The new dataset introduces the "Land Acres" field, which will display the total acreage for each parcel. This additional field allows for more detailed analysis and better supports planning, zoning, and property valuation tasks. An important new addition is the FIPS code field, which provides the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) code for each parcel’s corresponding block. This allows users to easily identify which block the parcel is in.Updated Service URL:The new parcel service URL includes all the updates mentioned above, such as the improved coordinate system, new data fields, and additional geospatial information. Users are strongly encouraged to transition to the new service as soon as possible to ensure that their workflows remain uninterrupted. The URL for this service will remain persistent moving forward. Once you have transitioned to the new service, the URL will remain constant, ensuring long term stability.For a limited time, the old service will continue to be available, but it will eventually be retired. Users should plan to switch to the new service well before this cutoff to avoid any disruptions in data access.The dataset has combined the Parcels and Computer-Assisted Mass Appraisal (CAMA) data for 2024 into a single dataset. This dataset is designed to make it easier for stakeholders and the GIS community to use and access the information as a geospatial dataset. Included in this dataset are geometries for all 169 municipalities and attribution from the CAMA data for all but one municipality. Pursuant to Section 7-100l of the Connecticut General Statutes, each municipality is required to transmit a digital parcel file and an accompanying assessor’s database file (known as a CAMA report), to its respective regional council of governments (COG) by May 1 annually. These data were gathered from the CT municipalities by the COGs and then submitted to CT OPM. This dataset was created on 10/31/2024 from data collected in 2023-2024. Data was processed using Python scripts and ArcGIS Pro, ensuring standardization and integration of the data.CAMA Notes:The CAMA underwent several steps to standardize and consolidate the information. Python scripts were used to concatenate fields and create a unique identifier for each entry. The resulting dataset contains 1,353,595 entries and information on property assessments and other relevant attributes.CAMA was provided by the towns.Spatial Data Notes:Data processing involved merging the parcels from different municipalities using ArcGIS Pro and Python. The resulting dataset contains 1,290,196 parcels.No alteration has been made to the spatial geometry of the data.Fields that are associated with CAMA data were provided by towns.The data fields that have information from the CAMA were sourced from the towns’ CAMA data.If no field for the parcels was provided for linking back to the CAMA by the town a new field within the original data was selected if it had a match rate above 50%, that joined back to the CAMA.Linking fields were renamed to "Link".All linking fields had a census town code added to the beginning of the value to create a unique identifier per town.Any field that was not town name, Location, Editor, Edit Date, or a field associated back to the CAMA, was not used in the creation of this Dataset.Only the fields related to town name, location, editor, edit date, and link fields associated with the towns’ CAMA were included in the creation of this dataset. Any other field provided in the original data was deleted or not used.Field names for town (Muni, Municipality) were renamed to "Town Name".The attributes included in the data: Town Name OwnerCo-OwnerLinkEditorEdit DateCollection year – year the parcels were submittedLocationMailing AddressMailing CityMailing StateAssessed TotalAssessed LandAssessed BuildingPre-Year Assessed Total Appraised LandAppraised BuildingAppraised OutbuildingConditionModelValuationZoneState UseState Use DescriptionLand Acre Living AreaEffective AreaTotal roomsNumber of bedroomsNumber of BathsNumber of Half-BathsSale PriceSale DateQualifiedOccupancyPrior Sale PricePrior Sale DatePrior Book and PagePlanning RegionFIPS Code *Please note that not all parcels have a link to a CAMA entry.*If any discrepancies are discovered within the data, whether pertaining to geographical inaccuracies or attribute inaccuracy, please directly contact the respective municipalities to request any necessary amendmentsAdditional information about the specifics of data availability and compliance will be coming soon.If you need a WFS service for use in specific applications : Please Click Here

This table will no longer be updated after 5/30/2024 given the end of the 2023-2024 viral respiratory vaccine season.

This table shows the cumulative number and percentage of CT residents who have received an updated COVID-19 vaccine during the 2023-2024 viral respiratory season by age group (current age).
CDC recommends that people get at least one dose of this vaccine to protect against serious illness, whether or not they have had a COVID-19 vaccination before. Children and people with moderate to severe immunosuppression might be recommended more than one dose. For more information on COVID-19 vaccination recommendations, click here.
• Data are reported weekly on Thursday and include doses administered to Saturday of the previous week (Sunday – Saturday). All data in this report are preliminary. Data from the previous week may be changed because of delays in reporting, deduplication, or correction of errors.
• These analyses are based on data reported to CT WiZ which is the immunization information system for CT. CT providers are required by law to report all doses of vaccine administered. CT WiZ also receives records on CT residents vaccinated in other jurisdictions and by federal entities which share data with CT Wiz electronically. Electronic data exchange is being added jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction. Currently, this includes Rhode Island and New York City but not Massachusetts and New York State. Therefore, doses administered to CT residents in neighboring towns in Massachusetts and New York State will not be included. A full list of the jurisdiction with which CT has established electronic data exchange can be seen at the bottom of this page (https://portal.ct.gov/immunization/Knowledge-Base/Articles/Vaccine-Providers/CT-WiZ-for-Vaccine-Providers-and-Training/Query-and-Response-functionality-in-CT-WiZ?language=en_US)
• Population size estimates used to calculate cumulative percentages are based on 2020 DPH provisional census estimates*.
• People are included if they have an active jurisdictional status in CT WiZ at the time weekly data are pulled. This excludes people who live out of state, are deceased and a small percentage who have opted out of CT WiZ.
* DPH Provisional State and County Characteristics Estimates April 1, 2020. Hayes L, Abdellatif E, Jiang Y, Backus K (2022) Connecticut DPH Provisional April 1, 2020, State Population Estimates by 18 age groups, sex, and 6 combined race and ethnicity groups. Connecticut Department of Public Health, Health Statistics & Surveillance, SAR, Hartford, CT.

Note: DPH is updating and streamlining the COVID-19 cases, deaths, and testing data. As of 6/27/2022, the data will be published in four tables instead of twelve.

The COVID-19 Cases, Deaths, and Tests by Day dataset contains cases and test data by date of sample submission. The death data are by date of death. This dataset is updated daily and contains information back to the beginning of the pandemic. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Cases-Deaths-and-Tests-by-Day/g9vi-2ahj.

The COVID-19 State Metrics dataset contains over 93 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 21, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-State-Level-Data/qmgw-5kp6 .

The COVID-19 County Metrics dataset contains 25 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 16, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-County-Level-Data/ujiq-dy22 .

The COVID-19 Town Metrics dataset contains 16 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 16, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Town-Level-Data/icxw-cada . To protect confidentiality, if a town has fewer than 5 cases or positive NAAT tests over the past 7 days, those data will be suppressed.

This dataset includes a count and rate per 100,000 population for COVID-19 cases, a count of COVID-19 molecular diagnostic tests, and a percent positivity rate for tests among people living in community settings for the previous two-week period. Dates are based on date of specimen collection (cases and positivity).

A person is considered a new case only upon their first COVID-19 testing result because a case is defined as an instance or bout of illness. If they are tested again subsequently and are still positive, it still counts toward the test positivity metric but they are not considered another case.

Percent positivity is calculated as the number of positive tests among community residents conducted during the 14 days divided by the total number of positive and negative tests among community residents during the same period. If someone was tested more than once during that 14 day period, then those multiple test results (regardless of whether they were positive or negative) are included in the calculation.

These case and test counts do not include cases or tests among people residing in congregate settings, such as nursing homes, assisted living facilities, or correctional facilities.

These data are updated weekly and reflect the previous two full Sunday-Saturday (MMWR) weeks (https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/document/MMWR_week_overview.pdf).

DPH note about change from 7-day to 14-day metrics: Prior to 10/15/2020, these metrics were calculated using a 7-day average rather than a 14-day average. The 7-day metrics are no longer being updated as of 10/15/2020 but the archived dataset can be accessed here: https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-case-rate-per-100-000-population-and-perc/s22x-83rd

As you know, we are learning more about COVID-19 all the time, including the best ways to measure COVID-19 activity in our communities. CT DPH has decided to shift to 14-day rates because these are more stable, particularly at the town level, as compared to 7-day rates. In addition, since the school indicators were initially published by DPH last summer, CDC has recommended 14-day rates and other states (e.g., Massachusetts) have started to implement 14-day metrics for monitoring COVID transmission as well.

With respect to geography, we also have learned that many people are looking at the town-level data to inform decision making, despite emphasis on the county-level metrics in the published addenda. This is understandable as there has been variation within counties in COVID-19 activity (for example, rates that are higher in one town than in most other towns in the county).

Additional notes: As of 11/5/2020, CT DPH has added antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 to reported test counts in this dataset. The tests included in this dataset include both molecular and antigen datasets. Molecular tests reported include polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and nucleic acid amplicfication (NAAT) tests.

The population data used to calculate rates is based on the CT DPH population statistics for 2019, which is available online here: https://portal.ct.gov/DPH/Health-Information-Systems--Reporting/Population/Population-Statistics. Prior to 5/10/2021, the population estimates from 2018 were used.

Data suppression is applied when the rate is <5 cases per 100,000 or if there are <5 cases within the town. Information on why data suppression rules are applied can be found online here: https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/uscs/technical_notes/stat_methods/suppression.htm

The Transdiagnostic Connectome Project

A richly phenotyped transdiagnostic dataset with behavioral and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) data from 241 individuals aged 18 to 70, comprising 148 individuals meeting diagnostic criteria for a broad range of psychiatric illnesses and a healthy comparison group of 93 individuals.

These data include high-resolution anatomical scans and 6 x resting-state, and 3 x task-based (2 x Stroop, 1 x Faces/Shapes) functional MRI runs. Participants completed over 50 psychological and cognitive questionnaires, as well as a semi-structured clinical interview.

Data was collected at the Brain Imaging Center, Yale University, New Haven, CT and McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA. This dataset will allow investigation into brain function and transdiagnostic psychopathology in a community sample.

Inclusion Criteria

Participants in the study met the following inclusion criteria:

• Aged 18 to 64 years and spoke English
• No metal contraindications, no history of concussion or prior neurological problems, no color-blindness
• Prior history of affective or psychotic illness or no psychiatric history

Exclusion criteria

Participants meeting any of the criteria listed below were excluded from the study: * Neurological disorders * Pervasive developmental disorders (e.g., autism spectrum disorder) * Any medical condition that increases risk for MRI (e.g., pacemaker, dental braces) * MRI contraindications (e.g., claustrophobia pregnancy)

Consent

Institutional Review Board approval and consent were obtained. To characterise the sample, we collected data on race/ethnicity, income, use of psychotropic medication, and family history of medical or psychiatric conditions.

Clinical Measures

Completed by Participants:

• Health and demographics questionnaire
• Alcohol Tobacco Caffeine Use Questionnaire (ATC)
• Broad Autism Phenotype Questionnaire (BAPQ-2)
• Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS)
• Behavioral Inhibition/Activation Scale (BISBAS)
• Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ)
• Domain Specific Risk Taking (DOSPERT)
• Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND)
• NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI)
• Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS)
• Multidimensional Scale for Perceived Social Support (MSPSS)
• State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)
• Temperament Character Inventory (TCI)
• Anxiety Sensitivity Index (ASI)
• Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS)
• Profile of Mood States (POMS)
• Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)
• Shipley Institute of Living Scale (Shipley)
• Temporal Experience of Pleasure Scale (TEPS)
• Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ)
• Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ)
• Cognitive Reflections Test (CRT)
• Experiences in Close Relationships Inventory (ECR)
• Positive Urgency Measure (PUM)
• Ruminative Responses Scale (RRS)
• Retrospective Self-Report of Inhibition (RSRI)
• Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale (SHAPS)
• Test My Brain (TMB)
• Stroop Task (during fMRI)
• Hammer Task (during fMRI)

Completed by Clinicians:

• Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Disorder (SCID-5)
• Clinical Global Impression (CGI)
• Anxiety Symptom Chronicity (ASC)
• Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (CSSR-S)
• Range of Impaired Functioning Tool (LIFE-RIFT)
• Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)
• Multnomah Community Ability Scale (MCAS)
• Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS)
• Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS)
• Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS)

Clinical Measures Data

Relevant clinical measures can be found in the phenotype folder, with each measure and its items described in the relevant _definition .csv file. The 'qc' columns indicate quality control checks done on each members (i.e., number of unanswered items by a participant.) '999' values indicate missing or skipped data.

Detailed information and imaging protocols regarding the dataset can be found here: [Add preprint Link]

This data collection consists of images acquired during chemoradiotherapy of 20 locally-advanced, non-small cell lung cancer patients. The images include four-dimensional (4D) fan beam (4D-FBCT) and 4D cone beam CT (4D-CBCT). All patients underwent concurrent radiochemotherapy to a total dose of 64.8-70 Gy using daily 1.8 or 2 Gy fractions.

4D-FBCT images were acquired on a 16-slice helical CT scanner (Brilliance Big Bore, Philips Medical Systems, Andover, MA) as respiration-correlated CTs with 10 breathing phases (0 to 90%, phase-based binning) and 3 mm slice thickness. 4D-FBCT images were acquired during simulation, prior to therapy, and used for therapy planning. In 14 of the 20 subjects, 4D-FBCTs were also acquired on the same scanner weekly during therapy. 4D-CBCT images were acquired on a commercial CBCT scanner (On-Board Imager™, Varian Medical Systems, Inc.). An external surrogate (Real-time Position Management, Varian Medical Systems, Inc.) was integrated into the CBCT acquisition system to stamp each CBCT projection with the surrogate respiratory signal through in-house software and hardware tools. Approximately 2500 projections were acquired over a period of 8-10 minutes in half-fan mode with half bow-tie filter. The technique was 125 kVp, 20 mA, and 20 ms in a single 360° slow gantry arc. Using the external surrogate, the CBCT projections were sorted into 10 breathing phases (0 to 90%, phase-based binning) and reconstructed with an in-house FDK reconstruction algorithm.

Audio-visual biofeedback was performed for all 4D-FBCT and 4D-CBCT acquisitions in all subjects. A single Radiation Oncologist delineated targets and organs at risk in all 4D-FBCT and a limited number of 4D-CBCT images, on all 10 phases per scan. Seven of the subjects had gold coils implanted as fiducial markers in or near the tumor.

The dataset is most fully described in detail in Balik et al.¹ Seven of the subjects had gold coils implanted as fiducial markers in or near the tumor. The implantation procedure and details of marker location are described in detail in Roman et al.²

References

This dataset provides information about the number of properties, residents, and average property values for Hines Court cross streets in Marblehead, MA.