Understanding the DsJ+(2317)D^+_{sJ}(2317) and DsJ+(2460)D^+_{sJ}(2460) with Sum Rules in HQET

In the framework of heavy quark effective theory we use QCD sum rules to calculate the masses of the $\bar c s$ $(0^+, 1^+)$ and $(1^+, 2^+)$ excited states. The results are consistent with that the states $D_{sJ}(2317)$ and $D_{sJ}(2460)$ observed by BABAR and CLEO are the $0^+$ and $1^+$ states in the $j_l={1\over 2}^+$ doublet

The masses and decay widths of heavy hybrid mesons

We first derive the mass sum rules for the heavy hybrid mesons to obtain the binding energy and decay constants in the leading order of HQET. The pionic couplings between the lightest $1^{-+}$ hybrid $(Q\bar q g)$ and the lowest three heavy meson doublets are calculated with the light cone QCD sum rules. With $SU_f (3)$ flavor symmetry we calculate the widths for all the possible two-body decay processes with a Goldstone boson in the final state. The total width of the $1^{-+}$ hybrid is estimated to be 300 MeV. We find the dominant decay mode of the $1^{-+}$ hybrid is $1^{-+}\to \pi + 1^+$ where the $1^+$ heavy meson belongs to the $(1^+,2^+)$ doublet. Its branching ratio is about 80% so this mode can be used for the experimental search of the lowest heavy hybrid meson.Comment: 20 pages + 12 PS figures, introduction revised, Fig 7 updated, to appear in Phys. Rev.

World Health Organization cardiovascular disease risk charts: revised models to estimate risk in 21 global regions

BACKGROUND: To help adapt cardiovascular disease risk prediction approaches to low-income and middle-income countries, WHO has convened an effort to develop, evaluate, and illustrate revised risk models. Here, we report the derivation, validation, and illustration of the revised WHO cardiovascular disease risk prediction charts that have been adapted to the circumstances of 21 global regions. METHODS: In this model revision initiative, we derived 10-year risk prediction models for fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular disease (ie, myocardial infarction and stroke) using individual participant data from the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration. Models included information on age, smoking status, systolic blood pressure, history of diabetes, and total cholesterol. For derivation, we included participants aged 40-80 years without a known baseline history of cardiovascular disease, who were followed up until the first myocardial infarction, fatal coronary heart disease, or stroke event. We recalibrated models using age-specific and sex-specific incidences and risk factor values available from 21 global regions. For external validation, we analysed individual participant data from studies distinct from those used in model derivation. We illustrated models by analysing data on a further 123 743 individuals from surveys in 79 countries collected with the WHO STEPwise Approach to Surveillance. FINDINGS: Our risk model derivation involved 376 177 individuals from 85 cohorts, and 19 333 incident cardiovascular events recorded during 10 years of follow-up. The derived risk prediction models discriminated well in external validation cohorts (19 cohorts, 1 096 061 individuals, 25 950 cardiovascular disease events), with Harrell's C indices ranging from 0·685 (95% CI 0·629-0·741) to 0·833 (0·783-0·882). For a given risk factor profile, we found substantial variation across global regions in the estimated 10-year predicted risk. For example, estimated cardiovascular disease risk for a 60-year-old male smoker without diabetes and with systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg and total cholesterol of 5 mmol/L ranged from 11% in Andean Latin America to 30% in central Asia. When applied to data from 79 countries (mostly low-income and middle-income countries), the proportion of individuals aged 40-64 years estimated to be at greater than 20% risk ranged from less than 1% in Uganda to more than 16% in Egypt. INTERPRETATION: We have derived, calibrated, and validated new WHO risk prediction models to estimate cardiovascular disease risk in 21 Global Burden of Disease regions. The widespread use of these models could enhance the accuracy, practicability, and sustainability of efforts to reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease worldwide. FUNDING: World Health Organization, British Heart Foundation (BHF), BHF Cambridge Centre for Research Excellence, UK Medical Research Council, and National Institute for Health Research

Mass-spectrometry-based metabolomics: limitations and recommendations for future progress with particular focus on nutrition research

Mass spectrometry (MS) techniques, because of their sensitivity and selectivity, have become methods of choice to characterize the human metabolome and MS-based metabolomics is increasingly used to characterize the complex metabolic effects of nutrients or foods. However progress is still hampered by many unsolved problems and most notably the lack of well established and standardized methods or procedures, and the difficulties still met in the identification of the metabolites influenced by a given nutritional intervention. The purpose of this paper is to review the main obstacles limiting progress and to make recommendations to overcome them. Propositions are made to improve the mode of collection and preparation of biological samples, the coverage and quality of mass spectrometry analyses, the extraction and exploitation of the raw data, the identification of the metabolites and the biological interpretation of the results

SPARC 2022 book of abstracts

Welcome to the Book of Abstracts for the 2022 SPARC conference. Our conference is called “Moving Forwards” reflecting our re-emergence from the pandemic and our desire to reconnect our PGR community, in celebration of their research. PGRs have continued with their research endeavours despite many challenges, and their ongoing successes are underpinned by the support and guidance of dedicated supervisors and the Doctoral School Team. To recognise supervision excellence we will be awarding our annual Supervisor of the Year prizes, based on the wonderful nominations received from their PGR students.Once again, we have received a tremendous contribution from our postgraduate research community; with over 60 presenters, 12 Three-Minute Thesis finalists, and 20 poster presentations, the conference showcases our extraordinarily vibrant, inclusive, and resilient PGR community at Salford. This year there will be prizes to be won for ‘best in conference’ presentations, in addition to the winners from each parallel session. Audience members too could be in for a treat, with judges handing out spot prizes for the best questions asked, so don’t miss the opportunity to put your hand up. These abstracts provide a taster of the diverse and impactful research in progress and provide delegates with a reference point for networking and initiating critical debate. Take advantage of the hybrid format: in online sessions by posting a comment or by messaging an author to say “Hello”, or by initiating break time discussions about the amazing research you’ve seen if you are with us in person. Who knows what might result from your conversation? With such wide-ranging topics being showcased, we encourage you to take up this great opportunity to engage with researchers working in different subject areas from your own. As recent events have shown, researchers need to collaborate to meet global challenges. Interdisciplinary and international working is increasingly recognised and rewarded by all major research funders. We do hope, therefore, that you will take this opportunity to initiate interdisciplinary conversations with other researchers. A question or comment from a different perspective can shed new light on a project and could lead to exciting collaborations, and that is what SPARC is all about. SPARC is part of a programme of personal and professional development opportunities offered to all postgraduate researchers at Salford. More information about this programme is available on our website: Doctoral School | University of Salford. Registered Salford students can access full details on the Doctoral School hub: Doctoral School Hub - Home (sharepoint.com) You can follow us on Twitter @SalfordPGRs and please use the #SPARC2022 to share your conference experience.We particularly welcome taught students from our undergraduate and master’s programmes as audience members. We hope you enjoy the presentations on offer and that they inspire you to pursue your own research career. If you would like more information about studying for a PhD here at the University of Salford, your lecturers can advise, or you can contact the relevant PGR Support Officer; their details can be found at Doctoral School | University of Salford. We wish you a rich and rewarding conference experience

Early mobilisation in critically ill COVID-19 patients: a subanalysis of the ESICM-initiated UNITE-COVID observational study

Background Early mobilisation (EM) is an intervention that may improve the outcome of critically ill patients. There is limited data on EM in COVID-19 patients and its use during the first pandemic wave. Methods This is a pre-planned subanalysis of the ESICM UNITE-COVID, an international multicenter observational study involving critically ill COVID-19 patients in the ICU between February 15th and May 15th, 2020. We analysed variables associated with the initiation of EM (within 72 h of ICU admission) and explored the impact of EM on mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, as well as discharge location. Statistical analyses were done using (generalised) linear mixed-effect models and ANOVAs. Results Mobilisation data from 4190 patients from 280 ICUs in 45 countries were analysed. 1114 (26.6%) of these patients received mobilisation within 72 h after ICU admission; 3076 (73.4%) did not. In our analysis of factors associated with EM, mechanical ventilation at admission (OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.25, 0.35; p = 0.001), higher age (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.98, 1.00; p ≤ 0.001), pre-existing asthma (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73, 0.98; p = 0.028), and pre-existing kidney disease (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.71, 0.99; p = 0.036) were negatively associated with the initiation of EM. EM was associated with a higher chance of being discharged home (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.08, 1.58; p = 0.007) but was not associated with length of stay in ICU (adj. difference 0.91 days; 95% CI − 0.47, 1.37, p = 0.34) and hospital (adj. difference 1.4 days; 95% CI − 0.62, 2.35, p = 0.24) or mortality (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.7, 1.09, p = 0.24) when adjusted for covariates. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that a quarter of COVID-19 patients received EM. There was no association found between EM in COVID-19 patients' ICU and hospital length of stay or mortality. However, EM in COVID-19 patients was associated with increased odds of being discharged home rather than to a care facility. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04836065 (retrospectively registered April 8th 2021)

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Correction to: Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake