Self-organized formation of unidirectional and quasi-one-dimensional metallic Tb silicide nanowires on Si(110)

Terbium induced nanostructures on Si(110) and their growth are thoroughly characterized by low energy electron diffraction, scanning tunneling microscopy and spectroscopy, core-level and valence band photoelectron spectroscopy, and angle-resolved photoelectron spectroscopy. For low Tb coverage, a wetting layer forms with its surface fraction continuously decreasing with increasing Tb coverage in favor of the formation of unidirectional Tb silicide nanowires. These nanowires show high aspect ratios for high annealing temperatures or on substrates already containing Tb in the bulk. Both wetting layer and nanowires are stable for temperatures up to 750°C. In contrast to the nanowires, the wetting layer is characterized by a band gap. Thus, the metallic nanowires, which show a quasi-one-dimensional electronic band structure, are embedded in a semiconducting surrounding of wetting layer and substrate, insulating the nanowires from each other

Self-organized formation of unidirectional and quasi-one-dimensional metallic Tb silicide nanowires on Si(110)

Terbium induced nanostructures on Si(110) and their growth are thoroughly characterized by low energy electron diffraction, scanning tunneling microscopy and spectroscopy, core-level and valence band photoelectron spectroscopy, and angle-resolved photoelectron spectroscopy. For low Tb coverage, a wetting layer forms with its surface fraction continuously decreasing with increasing Tb coverage in favor of the formation of unidirectional Tb silicide nanowires. These nanowires show high aspect ratios for high annealing temperatures or on substrates already containing Tb in the bulk. Both wetting layer and nanowires are stable for temperatures up to 750°C. In contrast to the nanowires, the wetting layer is characterized by a band gap. Thus, the metallic nanowires, which show a quasi-one-dimensional electronic band structure, are embedded in a semiconducting surrounding of wetting layer and substrate, insulating the nanowires from each other

Implementing Motor Unit Number Index (MUNIX) in a large clinical trial : Real world experience from 27 centres

Objective: Motor Unit Number Index (MUNIX) is a quantitative neurophysiological method that reflects loss of motor neurons in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) in longitudinal studies. It has been utilized in one natural history ALS study and one drug trial (Biogen USA) after training and qualification of raters. Methods: Prior to testing patients, evaluators had to submit test-retest data of 4 healthy volunteers. Twenty-seven centres with 36 raters measured MUNIX in 4 sets of 6 different muscles twice. Coefficient of variation of all measurements had to be <20% to pass the qualification process. MUNIX COV of the first attempt, number of repeated measurements and muscle specific COV were evaluated. Results: COV varied considerably between raters. Mean COV of all raters at the first measurements was 12.9% ± 13.5 (median 8.7%). Need of repetitions ranged from 0 to 43 (mean 10.7 ± 9.1, median 8). Biceps and first dorsal interosseus muscles showed highest repetition rates. MUNIX variability correlated considerably with variability of compound muscle action potential. Conclusion: MUNIX revealed generally good reliability, but was rater dependent and ongoing support for raters was needed. Significance: MUNIX can be implemented in large clinical trials as an outcome measure after training and a qualification process

Implementing Motor Unit Number Index (MUNIX) in a large clinical trial: Real world experience from 27 centres

OBJECTIVE: Motor Unit Number Index (MUNIX) is a quantitative neurophysiological method that reflects loss of motor neurons in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) in longitudinal studies. It has been utilized in one natural history ALS study and one drug trial (Biogen USA) after training and qualification of raters. METHODS: Prior to testing patients, evaluators had to submit test-retest data of 4 healthy volunteers. Twenty-seven centres with 36 raters measured MUNIX in 4 sets of 6 different muscles twice. Coefficient of variation of all measurements had to be <20% to pass the qualification process. MUNIX COV of the first attempt, number of repeated measurements and muscle specific COV were evaluated. RESULTS: COV varied considerably between raters. Mean COV of all raters at the first measurements was 12.9% ± 13.5 (median 8.7%). Need of repetitions ranged from 0 to 43 (mean 10.7 ± 9.1, median 8). Biceps and first dorsal interosseus muscles showed highest repetition rates. MUNIX variability correlated considerably with variability of compound muscle action potential. CONCLUSION: MUNIX revealed generally good reliability, but was rater dependent and ongoing support for raters was needed. SIGNIFICANCE: MUNIX can be implemented in large clinical trials as an outcome measure after training and a qualification process.status: publishe