Toward an Instrumented Strength Microprobe – Origins of the Oliver-Pharr Method and Continued Advancements in Nanoindentation: Part 1

Sub-micron instrumented indentation testing and standardized nanoindentation testing systems have become commonplace within the materials engineering community. Though commonly utilized for mechanical characterization, general appreciation and understanding of the governing theory, formulations and best practices underpinning modern nanoindentation systems appears to remain relatively elusive to the general materials science and engineering community as well as nanoindentation practitioners using such systems for mechanical assessment. Accordingly, the present chapter details how nanoindentation methods emerged and how the Oliver-Pharr method of nanoindentation testing and analysis was constructed and refined to yield theoretically consistent and readily implementable attributes for probing small-scale mechanical properties via microscopy free indentation testing

Toward an Instrumented Strength Microprobe: Origins of the Oliver-Pharr Method and Continued Advancements in Nanoindentation—Part 2

Numerable advancements have afforded many benefits to nanoindenter system operators since the late 20th century, such as automation of measurements, enhanced load and displacement resolutions, and indentation with in-situ capabilities. Accordingly, the present chapter details how the Oliver-Pharr method of nanoindentation testing and analysis was adopted and relied upon as a framework that brought about widespread advancements in instrumented indentation testing. The present chapter introduces an emergent and theoretically consistent approach to assessing true stress–strain curves at a micromechanical scale using a flat-punch nanoindenter tip geometry and reliance upon Hollomon power-law plasticity and constitutive parameter fitting. Finally, a novel flat-punch nanoindentation testing method and approach to plasticity parameter analysis for metallic materials using nanoindentation systems can be implemented, bringing about an instrumented strength microprobe – a long sought-after tool

Calculating the return on investment of mobile healthcare

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Mobile health clinics provide an alternative portal into the healthcare system for the medically disenfranchised, that is, people who are underinsured, uninsured or who are otherwise outside of mainstream healthcare due to issues of trust, language, immigration status or simply location. Mobile health clinics as providers of last resort are an essential component of the healthcare safety net providing prevention, screening, and appropriate triage into mainstream services. Despite the face value of providing services to underserved populations, a focused analysis of the relative value of the mobile health clinic model has not been elucidated. The question that the return on investment algorithm has been designed to answer is: can the value of the services provided by mobile health programs be quantified in terms of quality adjusted life years saved and estimated emergency department expenditures avoided?</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using a sample mobile health clinic and published research that quantifies health outcomes, we developed and tested an algorithm to calculate the return on investment of a typical broad-service mobile health clinic: the relative value of mobile health clinic services = annual projected emergency department costs avoided + value of potential life years saved from the services provided. Return on investment ratio = the relative value of the mobile health clinic services/annual cost to run the mobile health clinic.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Based on service data provided by The Family Van for 2008 we calculated the annual cost savings from preventing emergency room visits, $3,125,668 plus the relative value of providing 7 of the top 25 priority prevention services during the same period, US$17,780,000 for a total annual value of $20,339,968. Given that the annual cost to run the program was$567,700, the calculated return on investment of The Family Van was 36:1.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>By using published data that quantify the value of prevention practices and the value of preventing unnecessary use of emergency departments, an empirical method was developed to determine the value of a typical mobile health clinic. The Family Van, a mobile health clinic that has been serving the medically disenfranchised of Boston for 16 years, was evaluated accordingly and found to have return on investment of $36 for every$1 invested in the program.</p

NeuroCOPE: A novel intervention to increase professional fulfillment and reduce burnout by connecting Neuro-ICU healthcare workers to their post-recovery patients

Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) caring for patients with acute neurologic injury in the ICU rarely receive detailed information on the recovery of their patients. The missing connection between the period of acute neurologic injury and long-term outcomes is a psychological burden that contributes to moral fatigue and burnout. We hypothesize that attending an Interprofessional conference series through which patients describe their acute brain injury and recovery to Neuro-ICU HCWs may ease moral fatigue, increasing professional fulfillment and reducing burnout.https://knowledgeconnection.mainehealth.org/lambrew-retreat-2023/1014/thumbnail.jp

Human Anti-Plague Monoclonal Antibodies Protect Mice from Yersinia pestis in a Bubonic Plague Model

Yersinia pestis is the etiologic agent of plague that has killed more than 200 million people throughout the recorded history of mankind. Antibiotics may provide little immediate relief to patients who have a high bacteremia or to patients infected with an antibiotic resistant strain of plague. Two virulent factors of Y. pestis are the capsid F1 protein and the low-calcium response (Lcr) V-protein or V-antigen that have been proven to be the targets for both active and passive immunization. There are mouse monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against the F1- and V-antigens that can passively protect mice in a murine model of plague; however, there are no anti-Yersinia pestis monoclonal antibodies available for prophylactic or therapeutic treatment in humans. We identified one anti-F1-specific human mAb (m252) and two anti-V-specific human mAb (m253, m254) by panning a naïve phage-displayed Fab library against the F1- and V-antigens. The Fabs were converted to IgG1s and their binding and protective activities were evaluated. M252 bound weakly to peptides located at the F1 N-terminus where a protective mouse anti-F1 mAb also binds. M253 bound strongly to a V-antigen peptide indicating a linear epitope; m254 did not bind to any peptide from a panel of 53 peptides suggesting that its epitope may be conformational. M252 showed better protection than m253 and m254 against a Y, pestis challenge in a plague mouse model. A synergistic effect was observed when the three antibodies were combined. Incomplete to complete protection was achieved when m252 was given at different times post-challenge. These antibodies can be further studied to determine their potential as therapeutics or prophylactics in Y. pestis infection in humans