115 research outputs found

    Photovoltaic self-assembly.

    Get PDF
    This late-start LDRD was focused on the application of chemical principles of self-assembly on the ordering and placement of photovoltaic cells in a module. The drive for this chemical-based self-assembly stems from the escalating prices in the 'pick-and-place' technology currently used in the MEMS industries as the size of chips decreases. The chemical self-assembly principles are well-known on a molecular scale in other material science systems but to date had not been applied to the assembly of cells in a photovoltaic array or module. We explored several types of chemical-based self-assembly techniques, including gold-thiol interactions, liquid polymer binding, and hydrophobic-hydrophilic interactions designed to array both Si and GaAs PV chips onto a substrate. Additional research was focused on the modification of PV cells in an effort to gain control over the facial directionality of the cells in a solvent-based environment. Despite being a small footprint research project worked on for only a short time, the technical results and scientific accomplishments were significant and could prove to be enabling technology in the disruptive advancement of the microelectronic photovoltaics industry

    1,3-Bis(phenyl­sufanylmeth­yl)benzene

    Get PDF
    The complete mol­ecule of the title compound, C20H18S2, is generated by crystallographic mirror symmetry, with two C atoms lying on the mirror plane. All of the independent atoms are contained within two planes defined by the thio­phenyl rings (C6S) and the central phenyl ring with the methyl­ene bridge; the r.m.s deviations of these planes are 0.012 and 0.025 Å, respectively. The two planes are almost perpendicular to one another at a dihedral angle of 80.24 (10)°. Inter­molecular C—H—π inter­actions are present in the crystal structure

    Microenvironmental Influence on Pre-Clinical Activity of Polo-Like Kinase Inhibition in Multiple Myeloma: Implications for Clinical Translation

    Get PDF
    Polo-like kinases (PLKs) play an important role in cell cycle progression, checkpoint control and mitosis. The high mitotic index and chromosomal instability of advanced cancers suggest that PLK inhibitors may be an attractive therapeutic option for presently incurable advanced neoplasias with systemic involvement, such as multiple myeloma (MM). We studied the PLK 1, 2, 3 inhibitor BI 2536 and observed potent (IC50<40 nM) and rapid (commitment to cell death <24 hrs) in vitro activity against MM cells in isolation, as well as in vivo activity against a traditional subcutaneous xenograft mouse model. Tumor cells in MM patients, however, don't exist in isolation, but reside in and interact with the bone microenvironment. Therefore conventional in vitro and in vivo preclinical assays don't take into account how interactions between MM cells and the bone microenvironment can potentially confer drug resistance. To probe this question, we performed tumor cell compartment-specific bioluminescence imaging assays to compare the preclinical anti-MM activity of BI 2536 in vitro in the presence vs. absence of stromal cells or osteoclasts. We observed that the presence of these bone marrow non-malignant cells led to decreased anti-MM activity of BI 2536. We further validated these results in an orthotopic in vivo mouse model of diffuse MM bone lesions where tumor cells interact with non-malignant cells of the bone microenvironment. We again observed that BI 2536 had decreased activity in this in vivo model of tumor-bone microenvironment interactions highlighting that, despite BI 2536's promising activity in conventional assays, its lack of activity in microenvironmental models raises concerns for its clinical development for MM. More broadly, preclinical drug testing in the absence of relevant tumor microenvironment interactions may overestimate potential clinical activity, thus explaining at least in part the gap between preclinical vs. clinical efficacy in MM and other cancers

    What about N? A methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Focus group studies are increasingly published in health related journals, but we know little about how researchers use this method, particularly how they determine the number of focus groups to conduct. The methodological literature commonly advises researchers to follow principles of data saturation, although practical advise on how to do this is lacking. Our objectives were firstly, to describe the current status of sample size in focus group studies reported in health journals. Secondly, to assess whether and how researchers explain the number of focus groups they carry out.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We searched PubMed for studies that had used focus groups and that had been published in open access journals during 2008, and extracted data on the number of focus groups and on any explanation authors gave for this number. We also did a qualitative assessment of the papers with regard to how number of groups was explained and discussed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified 220 papers published in 117 journals. In these papers insufficient reporting of sample sizes was common. The number of focus groups conducted varied greatly (mean 8.4, median 5, range 1 to 96). Thirty seven (17%) studies attempted to explain the number of groups. Six studies referred to rules of thumb in the literature, three stated that they were unable to organize more groups for practical reasons, while 28 studies stated that they had reached a point of saturation. Among those stating that they had reached a point of saturation, several appeared not to have followed principles from grounded theory where data collection and analysis is an iterative process until saturation is reached. Studies with high numbers of focus groups did not offer explanations for number of groups. Too much data as a study weakness was not an issue discussed in any of the reviewed papers.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Based on these findings we suggest that journals adopt more stringent requirements for focus group method reporting. The often poor and inconsistent reporting seen in these studies may also reflect the lack of clear, evidence-based guidance about deciding on sample size. More empirical research is needed to develop focus group methodology.</p

    Global wealth disparities drive adherence to COVID-safe pathways in head and neck cancer surgery

    Get PDF
    Peer reviewe

    The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

    Get PDF
    AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

    Elective surgery cancellations due to the COVID-19 pandemic: global predictive modelling to inform surgical recovery plans.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted routine hospital services globally. This study estimated the total number of adult elective operations that would be cancelled worldwide during the 12 weeks of peak disruption due to COVID-19. METHODS: A global expert response study was conducted to elicit projections for the proportion of elective surgery that would be cancelled or postponed during the 12 weeks of peak disruption. A Bayesian β-regression model was used to estimate 12-week cancellation rates for 190 countries. Elective surgical case-mix data, stratified by specialty and indication (surgery for cancer versus benign disease), were determined. This case mix was applied to country-level surgical volumes. The 12-week cancellation rates were then applied to these figures to calculate the total number of cancelled operations. RESULTS: The best estimate was that 28 404 603 operations would be cancelled or postponed during the peak 12 weeks of disruption due to COVID-19 (2 367 050 operations per week). Most would be operations for benign disease (90·2 per cent, 25 638 922 of 28 404 603). The overall 12-week cancellation rate would be 72·3 per cent. Globally, 81·7 per cent of operations for benign conditions (25 638 922 of 31 378 062), 37·7 per cent of cancer operations (2 324 070 of 6 162 311) and 25·4 per cent of elective caesarean sections (441 611 of 1 735 483) would be cancelled or postponed. If countries increased their normal surgical volume by 20 per cent after the pandemic, it would take a median of 45 weeks to clear the backlog of operations resulting from COVID-19 disruption. CONCLUSION: A very large number of operations will be cancelled or postponed owing to disruption caused by COVID-19. Governments should mitigate against this major burden on patients by developing recovery plans and implementing strategies to restore surgical activity safely
    corecore