QCD Corrections to QED Vacuum Polarization

We compute QCD corrections to QED calculations for vacuum polarization in background magnetic fields. Formally, the diagram for virtual $e\bar{e}$ loops is identical to the one for virtual $q\bar{q}$ loops. However due to confinement, or to the growth of $\alpha_s$ as $p^2$ decreases, a direct calculation of the diagram is not allowed. At large $p^2$ we consider the virtual $q\bar{q}$ diagram, in the intermediate region we discuss the role of the contribution of quark condensates \left and at the low-energy limit we consider the $\pi^0$, as well as charged pion $\pi^+\pi^-$ loops. Although these effects seem to be out of the measurement accuracy of photon-photon laboratory experiments they may be relevant for $\gamma$-ray burst propagation. In particular, for emissions from the center of the galaxy (8.5 kpc), we show that the mixing between the neutral pseudo-scalar pion $\pi_0$ and photons renders a deviation from the power-law spectrum in the $TeV$ range. As for scalar quark condensates \left and virtual $q\bar{q}$ loops are relevant only for very high radiation density $\sim 300 MeV/fm^3$ and very strong magnetic fields of order $\sim 10^{14} T$.Comment: 15 pages, 4 figures; Final versio

Solar Wind Turbulence and the Role of Ion Instabilities

International audienc

Variation in monitoring and treatment policies for intracranial hypertension in traumatic brain injury: A survey in 66 neurotrauma centers participating in the CENTER-TBI

Background: No definitive evidence exists on how intracranial hypertension should be treated in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). It is therefore likely that centers and practitioners individually balance potential benefits and risks of different intracranial pressure (ICP) management strategies, resulting in practice variation. The aim of this study was to examine variation in monitoring and treatment policies for intracranial hypertension in patients with TBI. Methods: A 29-item survey on ICP monitoring and treatment was developed based on literature and expert opinion, and pilot-tested in 16 centers. The questionnaire was sent to 68 neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research (CENTER-TBI) study. Results: The survey was completed by 66 centers (97% response rate). Centers were mainly academic hospitals (n = 60, 91%) and designated level I trauma centers (n = 44, 67%). The Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines were used in 49 (74%) centers. Approximately ninety percent of the participants (n = 58) indicated placing an ICP monitor in patients with severe TBI and computed tomography abnormalities. There was no consensus on other indications or on peri-insertion precautions. We found wide variation in the use of first- and second-tier treatments for elevated ICP. Approximately half of the centers were classified as having a relatively aggressive approach to ICP monitoring and treatment (n = 32, 48%), whereas the others were considered more conservative (n = 34, 52%). Conclusions: Substantial variation was found regarding monitoring and treatment policies in patients with traumatic brain injury and intracranial hypertension. The results of this survey indicate a lack of consensus between European neurotrauma centers and provide an opportunity and necessity for comparative effectiveness research