Leaf optical properties reflect variation in photosynthetic metabolism and its sensitivity to temperature

Researchers from a number of disciplines have long sought the ability to estimate the functional attributes of plant canopies, such as photosynthetic capacity, using remotely sensed data. To date, however, this goal has not been fully realized. In this study, fresh-leaf reflectance spectroscopy (λ=450–2500 nm) and a partial least-squares regression (PLSR) analysis were used to estimate key determinants of photosynthetic capacity—namely the maximum rates of RuBP carboxylation (Vcmax) and regeneration (Jmax)—measured with standard gas exchange techniques on leaves of trembling aspen and eastern cottonwood trees. The trees were grown across an array of glasshouse temperature regimes. The PLSR models yielded accurate and precise estimates of Vcmax and Jmax within and across species and glasshouse temperatures. These predictions were developed using unique contributions from different spectral regions. Most of the wavelengths selected were correlated with known absorption features related to leaf water content, nitrogen concentration, internal structure, and/or photosynthetic enzymes. In a field application of our PLSR models, spectral reflectance data effectively captured the short-term temperature sensitivities of Vcmax and Jmax in aspen foliage. These findings highlight a promising strategy for developing remote sensing methods to characterize dynamic, environmentally sensitive aspects of canopy photosynthetic metabolism at broad scales

La télémédecine comme soutien à la relance économique dans La santé au cœur de la relance économique du Québec

Ce document a été préparé afin de répondre à l’appel fait en juin 2020 du Ministre des Finances du Québec aux groupes de recherche qu’il appuie financièrement afin que ceux-ci proposent, par l’entremise de résultats de recherche appliquée ou de documents de réflexion, des actions à privilégier pour accélérer la reprise, assurer une croissance économique durable, dynamiser les régions du Québec et résorber le déficit budgétaire à venir tout en maintenant un financement adéquat pour la santé et l’éducation.Ministre des Finances du Québe

Problems with evidence assessment in COVID-19 health policy impact evaluation: a systematic review of study design and evidence strength

INTRODUCTION: Assessing the impact of COVID-19 policy is critical for informing future policies. However, there are concerns about the overall strength of COVID-19 impact evaluation studies given the circumstances for evaluation and concerns about the publication environment. METHODS: We included studies that were primarily designed to estimate the quantitative impact of one or more implemented COVID-19 policies on direct SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 outcomes. After searching PubMed for peer-reviewed articles published on 26 November 2020 or earlier and screening, all studies were reviewed by three reviewers first independently and then to consensus. The review tool was based on previously developed and released review guidance for COVID-19 policy impact evaluation. RESULTS: After 102 articles were identified as potentially meeting inclusion criteria, we identified 36 published articles that evaluated the quantitative impact of COVID-19 policies on direct COVID-19 outcomes. Nine studies were set aside because the study design was considered inappropriate for COVID-19 policy impact evaluation (n=8 pre/post; n=1 cross-sectional), and 27 articles were given a full consensus assessment. 20/27 met criteria for graphical display of data, 5/27 for functional form, 19/27 for timing between policy implementation and impact, and only 3/27 for concurrent changes to the outcomes. Only 4/27 were rated as overall appropriate. Including the 9 studies set aside, reviewers found that only four of the 36 identified published and peer-reviewed health policy impact evaluation studies passed a set of key design checks for identifying the causal impact of policies on COVID-19 outcomes. DISCUSSION: The reviewed literature directly evaluating the impact of COVID-19 policies largely failed to meet key design criteria for inference of sufficient rigour to be actionable by policy-makers. More reliable evidence review is needed to both identify and produce policy-actionable evidence, alongside the recognition that actionable evidence is often unlikely to be feasible

Problems with Evidence Assessment in COVID-19 Health Policy Impact Evaluation (PEACHPIE): A systematic review of evidence strength

Introduction: The impact of policies on COVID-19 outcomes is one of the most important questions of our time. Unfortunately, there are substantial concerns about the strength and quality of the literature examining policy impacts. This study systematically assessed the currently published COVID-19 policy impact literature for a checklist of study design elements and methodological issues. Methods: We included studies that were primarily designed to estimate the quantitative impact of one or more implemented COVID-19 policies on direct SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 outcomes. After searching PubMed for peer-reviewed articles published on November 26 or earlier and screening, all studies were reviewed by three reviewers independently and in consensus. The review tool was based on review guidance for assessing COVID-19 health policy impact evaluation analyses, including first identifying the assumptions behind the methods used, followed by assessing graphical display of outcomes data, functional form for the outcomes, timing between policy and impact, concurrent changes to the outcomes, and an overall rating. Results: After 102 articles were identified as potentially meeting inclusion criteria, we identified 36 published articles that evaluated the quantitative impact of COVID-19 policies on direct COVID-19 outcomes. The majority (n=23/36) of studies in our sample examined the impact of stay-at-home requirements. Nine studies were set aside due to inappropriate study design (n=8 pre/post; n=1 cross-section), and 27 articles were given a full consensus assessment. 20/27 met criteria for graphical display of data, 5/27 for functional form, 19/27 for timing between policy implementation and impact, and only 3/27 for concurrent changes to the outcomes. Only 1/27 studies passed all of the above checks, and 4/27 were rated as overall appropriate. Including the 9 studies set aside, we found that only four (or by a stricter standard, only one) of the 36 identified published and peer-reviewed health policy impact evaluation studies passed a set of key design checks for identifying the causal impact of policies on COVID-19 outcomes. Discussion: The current literature directly evaluating the impact of COVID-19 policies largely fails to meet key design criteria for useful inference. This may be partially due to the circumstances for evaluation being particularly difficult, as well as a context with desire for rapid publication, the importance of the topic, and weak peer review processes. Importantly, weak evidence is non-informative and does not indicate how effective these policies were on COVID-19 outcomes

High resolution imaging of tunnels by magnetic resonance neurography

Peripheral nerves often traverse confined fibro-osseous and fibro-muscular tunnels in the extremities, where they are particularly vulnerable to entrapment and compressive neuropathy. This gives rise to various tunnel syndromes, characterized by distinct patterns of muscular weakness and sensory deficits. This article focuses on several upper and lower extremity tunnels, in which direct visualization of the normal and abnormal nerve in question is possible with high resolution 3T MR neurography (MRN). MRN can also serve as a useful adjunct to clinical and electrophysiologic exams by discriminating adhesive lesions (perineural scar) from compressive lesions (such as tumor, ganglion, hypertrophic callous, or anomalous muscles) responsible for symptoms, thereby guiding appropriate treatment