Reusability check-based refinement of a biophysical fishpond model
In: Computers and electronics in agriculture: COMPAG online ; an international journal, Volume 218, p. 108664
127 results
Sort by:
In: Computers and electronics in agriculture: COMPAG online ; an international journal, Volume 218, p. 108664
LiMn2O4 and LiMn1.5M0.5O4 (M: Ni, Cu, Co) doped particles have been synthetized by sol-gel. Particles between 50 and 200 nm were obtained with the cubic spinel structure of the LiMn2O4. Ni doping shows a more efficient substitution in the octahedral 16d site, replacing the Mn3+ thorn ion, improving the important drawback of poor cycling behavior of LiMn2O4. The average pore size decrease with the addition of the doped elements in the LiMn2O4 structure from 2.9 to 2.6 nm. Thermal analysis shows that the doped particles present higher thermal stability that the undoped ones. Electrochemical behavior of the cathodes prepared with each of the active materials show that the doping influenced the electrochemical performance of the active material. Thus, a specific capacity of 33, 74, 44 and 53 mAh g(-1) (at C) and 74, 89, 59 and 69 mAh g(-1) (at C/10) were obtained for LiMn2O4, LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4, LiMn1.5Cu0.5O4 and LiMn1.5Co0.5O4 cathodes, respectively. All cathodes present good electrochemical stability with low capacity fade of 0.5 and 3.1% for LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4 and LiMn1.5Cu0.5O4, respectively, after 50 cycles. These results show an improvement of electrochemical performance for LiMn2O4 doped with Ni, Cu and Co, demonstrating their suitability for lithium-ion battery systems. ; Work supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) funds strategic funding UID/FIS/04650/2020 and UID/QUI/0686/2020, project PTDC/FIS-MAC/28157/2017, and Grants CEECIND/00833/2017 (R.G.) and SFRH/BPD/112547/2015 (C.M.C.). Financial support from the Basque Government Industry Department under the ELKARTEK and HAZITEK programs is also acknowledged. Technical and human support provided by SGIker (UPV/EHU, MICINN, GV/EJ, EGEF and ESF) is gratefully ...
BASE
In: Current anthropology, Volume 17, Issue 1, p. 23-47
ISSN: 1537-5382
In: Fox , BA , Schendel , D J , Butterfield , L H , Aamdal , S , Allison , J P , Ascierto , P A , Atkins , M B , Bartunkova , J , Bergmann , L , Berinstein , N , Bonorino , C C , Borden , E , Bramson , J L , Britten , C M , Cao , X , Carson , W E , Chang , A E , Characiejus , D , Choudhury , A R , Coukos , G , de Gruijl , T D , Dillman , R O , Dolstra , H , Dranoff , G , Durrant , L G , Finke , J H , Galon , J , Gollob , J A , Gouttefangeas , C , Grizzi , F , Guida , M , Hakansson , L , Hege , K , Herberman , R B , Hodi , F S , Hoos , A , Huber , C , Hwu , P , Imai , K , Jaffee , E M , Janetzki , S , June , C H , Kalinski , P , Kaufmann , H L , Kawakami , K , Kawakami , Y , Keilholtz , U , Khleif , S N , Kiessling , R , Kotlan , B , Kroemer , G , Lapointe , R , Levitsky , H I , Lotze , M T , Di Maio , M , Marschner , J P , Mastrangelo , M J , Masucci , G , Melero , I , Nelief , C , Murphy , W J , Nelson , B , Nicolini , A , Nishimura , M I , Odunsi , K , Ohashi , P S , O'Donnell-Tormey , J , Old , L J , Ottensmeier , C , Papamichail , M , Parmiani , G , Pawelec , G , Proietti , E , Qin , S , Rees , R , Ribas , A , Ridolfi , R , Ritter , G , Rivoltini , L , Romero , P J , Salem , M L , Scheper , R J , Seliger , B , Sharma , P , Shiku , H , Singh-Jasuja , H , Song , W , Straten , P T , Tahara , H , Tian , Z , van der Burg , S H , von Hoegen , P , Wang , E , Welters , M J , Winter , H , Withington , T , Wolchok , J D , Xiao , W , Zitvogel , L , Zwierzina , H , Marincola , F M , Gajewski , T F , Wigginton , J M & Disis , M L A 2011 , ' Defining the Critical Hurdles in Cancer Immunotherapy ' , Journal of Translational Medicine , vol. 9 , no. 1 , 214 . https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5876-9-214
Scientific discoveries that provide strong evidence of antitumor effects in preclinical models often encounter significant delays before being tested in patients with cancer. While some of these delays have a scientific basis, others do not. We need to do better. Innovative strategies need to move into early stage clinical trials as quickly as it is safe, and if successful, these therapies should efficiently obtain regulatory approval and widespread clinical application. In late 2009 and 2010 the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC), convened an "Immunotherapy Summit" with representatives from immunotherapy organizations representing Europe, Japan, China and North America to discuss collaborations to improve development and delivery of cancer immunotherapy. One of the concepts raised by SITC and defined as critical by all parties was the need to identify hurdles that impede effective translation of cancer immunotherapy. With consensus on these hurdles, international working groups could be developed to make recommendations vetted by the participating organizations. These recommendations could then be considered by regulatory bodies, governmental and private funding agencies, pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions to facilitate changes necessary to accelerate clinical translation of novel immune-based cancer therapies. The critical hurdles identified by representatives of the collaborating organizations, now organized as the World Immunotherapy Council, are presented and discussed in this report. Some of the identified hurdles impede all investigators; others hinder investigators only in certain regions or institutions or are more relevant to specific types of immunotherapy or first-in-humans studies. Each of these hurdles can significantly delay clinical translation of promising advances in immunotherapy yet if overcome, have the potential to improve outcomes of patients with cancer. © 2011 Fox et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
BASE
Background: Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods: This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings: Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16-30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77-0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50-0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80-0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54-0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation: Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services.
BASE
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
BASE
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long- term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
BASE