Optimasi Portofolio Resiko Menggunakan Model Markowitz MVO Dikaitkan dengan Keterbatasan Manusia dalam Memprediksi Masa Depan dalam Perspektif Al-Qur`an

Risk portfolio on modern finance has become increasingly technical, requiring the use of sophisticated mathematical tools in both research and practice. Since companies cannot insure themselves completely against risk, as human incompetence in predicting the future precisely that written in Al-Quran surah Luqman verse 34, they have to manage it to yield an optimal portfolio. The objective here is to minimize the variance among all portfolios, or alternatively, to maximize expected return among all portfolios that has at least a certain expected return. Furthermore, this study focuses on optimizing risk portfolio so called Markowitz MVO (Mean-Variance Optimization). Some theoretical frameworks for analysis are arithmetic mean, geometric mean, variance, covariance, linear programming, and quadratic programming. Moreover, finding a minimum variance portfolio produces a convex quadratic programming, that is minimizing the objective function ðð¥with constraintsð ð 𥠥 ðandð´ð¥ = ð. The outcome of this research is the solution of optimal risk portofolio in some investments that could be finished smoothly using MATLAB R2007b software together with its graphic analysis

Search for supersymmetry in events with one lepton and multiple jets in proton-proton collisions at root s=13 TeV

Peer reviewe

Search for anomalous couplings in boosted WW/WZ -> l nu q(q)over-bar production in proton-proton collisions at root s=8TeV

Peer reviewe

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Facilitating EMA binding test performance using fluorescent beads combined with next‐generation sequencing

Abstract The eosin‐5′‐maleimide (EMA) binding test is widely used as diagnostic test for hereditary spherocytosis (HS), one of the most common haemolytic disorders in Caucasian populations. We recently described the advantages of replacing the use of healthy control blood samples with fluorescent beads in a modified EMA binding assay. In this study we further explore this novel approach. We performed targeted next‐generation sequencing, modified EMA binding test and osmotic gradient ektacytometry on consecutive individuals referred to our laboratory on the suspicion of HS. In total, 33 of 95 carried a (likely) pathogenic variant, and 24 had variants of uncertain significance (VUS). We identified a total 79 different (likely) pathogenic variants and VUS, including 43 novel mutations. Discarding VUS and recessive mutations in STPA1, we used the occurrence of (likely) pathogenic variants to generate a diagnostic threshold for our modified EMA binding test. Twenty‐one of 23 individuals with non‐SPTA1 (likely) pathogenic variants had EMA ≥ 43.6 AU, which was the optimal threshold in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Accuracy was excellent at 93.4% and close to that of osmotic gradient ektacytometry (98.7%). In conclusion, we were able to simplify the EMA‐binding test by using rainbow beads as reference and (likely) pathogenic variants to define an accurate cut‐off value