A proposed system for displaying accessing techniques to library users in the field of metallurgy

The system described here, if properly implemented, might be used to help student engineers teach themselves how to access an information store, such as a library, and how to specify a search request

From Sacred to Scientific: Epic Religion, Spectacular Science, and Charlton Heston’s Science Fiction Cinema

This paper analyses how long-1960s cinema responded to and framed public discourses surrounding religion and science. This approach allows for a discussion that extends beyond a critical study of the scholarly debates that surround the place of religion in science during a transitional period. Charlton Heston was an epic actor who went from literally playing God in The Ten Commandments (1956) to playing “god” as a messianic scientist in The Omega Man (1971). Best known for playing Moses, Heston became an unlikely science-based cinema star during the early 1970s. He was re-imagined as a scientist, but the religiosity of his established persona was inescapable. Heston and the science-based films he starred in capitalized upon the utopian promises of real science, and also the fears of the vocal activist counterculture. Planet of the Apes (1968), Omega Man (1971), Soylent Green (1973), and other science-based films made between 1968-1977 were bleak countercultural warnings about excessive consumerism, uncontrolled science, nuclear armament, irreversible environmental damage, and eventual human extinction. In this paper I argue that Heston’s transition from biblical epic star to science-fiction anti-hero represents the way in which the role and interpretation of science changed in post-classical cinema. Despite the shift from religious epic to science-based spectacle, religion remained a faithful component of Hollywood output indicating the ongoing connection between science and religion in US culture. I will consider the transition from sacred to science-based narratives and how religion was utilised across the production process of films that commented upon scientific advances

Maraviroc for previously treated patients with R5 HIV-1 infection

Background CC chemokine receptor 5 antagonists are a new class of antiretroviral agents.Methods We conducted two double- blind, placebo- controlled, phase 3 studies - Maraviroc versus Optimized Therapy in Viremic Antiretroviral Treatment- Experienced Patients ( MOTIVATE) 1 and MOTIVATE 2 - with patients who had R5 human immunodeficiency virus type 1 ( HIV- 1) only. They had been treated with or had resistance to three antiretroviral- drug classes and had HIV- 1 RNA levels of more than 5000 copies per milliliter. The patients were randomly assigned to one of three antiretroviral regimens consisting of maraviroc once daily, maraviroc twice daily, or placebo, each of which included optimized background therapy ( OBT) based on treatment history and drug- resistance testing. Safety and efficacy were assessed after 48 weeks.Results A total of 1049 patients received the randomly assigned study drug; the mean baseline HIV- 1 RNA level was 72,400 copies per milliliter, and the median CD4 cell count was 169 per cubic millimeter. At 48 weeks, in both studies, the mean change in HIV- 1 RNA from baseline was greater with maraviroc than with placebo: - 1.66 and - 1.82 log(10) copies per milliliter with the once- daily and twice- daily regimens, respectively, versus - 0.80 with placebo in MOTIVATE 1, and - 1.72 and - 1.87 log(10) copies per milliliter, respectively, versus - 0.76 with placebo in MOTIVATE 2. More patients receiving maraviroc once or twice daily had HIV- 1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter ( 42% and 47%, respectively, vs. 16% in the placebo group in MOTIVATE 1; 45% in both maraviroc groups vs. 18% in MOTIVATE 2; P< 0.001 for both comparisons in each study). The change from baseline in CD4 counts was also greater with maraviroc once or twice daily than with placebo ( increases of 113 and 122 per cubic millimeter, respectively, vs. 54 in MOTIVATE 1; increases of 122 and 128 per cubic millimeter, respectively, vs. 69 in MOTIVATE 2; P< 0.001 for both comparisons in each study). Frequencies of adverse events were similar among the groups.Conclusions Maraviroc, as compared with placebo, resulted in significantly greater suppression of HIV- 1 and greater increases in CD4 cell counts at 48 weeks in previously treated patients with R5 HIV- 1 who were receiving OBT. (ClinicalTrials. gov numbers, NCT00098306 and NCT00098722.)

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

non present