Advancing Our Understanding of Martian Proton Aurora through a Coordinated Multi-Model Comparison Campaign

Proton aurora are the most commonly observed yet least studied type of aurora at Mars. In order to better understand the physics and driving processes of Martian proton aurora, we undertake a multi-model comparison campaign. We compare results from four different proton/hydrogen precipitation models with unique abilities to represent Martian proton aurora: Jolitz model (3-D Monte Carlo), Kallio model (3-D Monte Carlo), Bisikalo/Shematovich et al. model (1-D kinetic Monte Carlo), and Gronoff et al. model (1-D kinetic). This campaign is divided into two steps: an inter-model comparison and a data-model comparison. The inter-model comparison entails modeling five different representative cases using similar constraints in order to better understand the capabilities and limitations of each of the models. Through this step we find that the two primary variables affecting proton aurora are the incident solar wind particle flux and velocity. In the data-model comparison, we assess the robustness of each model based on its ability to reproduce a MAVEN/IUVS proton aurora observation. All models are able to effectively simulate the data. Variations in modeled intensity and peak altitude can be attributed to differences in model capabilities/solving techniques and input assumptions (e.g., cross sections, 3-D versus 1-D solvers, and implementation of the relevant physics and processes). The good match between the observations and multiple models gives a measure of confidence that the appropriate physical processes and their associated parameters have been correctly identified and provides insight into the key physics that should be incorporated in future models

Hegel, Adorno and the origins of immanent criticism

‘Immanent criticism' has been discussed by philosophers of quite different persuasions, working in separate areas and in different traditions of philosophy. Almost all of them agree on roughly the same story about its origins: It is that Hegel invented immanent criticism, that Marx later developed it, and that the various members of the Frankfurt School, particularly Adorno, refined it in various ways, and that they are all paradigmatic practitioners of immanent criticism. I call this the Continuity Thesis. There are four different claims that interest me. (i) Hegel is the originator of immanent criticism. (ii) Hegel's dialectical method is that of immanent criticism. (iii) Adorno practises immanent criticism and endorses the term as a description of his practice. (iv) Adorno's dialectical method is fundamentally Hegelian. In this article, I offer an account of immanent criticism, on the basis of which, I evaluate these four claims and argue that the Continuity Thesis should be rejected

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe

The past, present, and future of the Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS)

The Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS) is a community-driven standard for the organization of data and metadata from a growing range of neuroscience modalities. This paper is meant as a history of how the standard has developed and grown over time. We outline the principles behind the project, the mechanisms by which it has been extended, and some of the challenges being addressed as it evolves. We also discuss the lessons learned through the project, with the aim of enabling researchers in other domains to learn from the success of BIDS

Quality of Life and Cognitive Function Evaluations and Interventions for Patients with Brain Metastases in the Radiation Oncology Clinic

Brain metastases (BMs) account for a disproportionately high percentage of cancer morbidity and mortality. Historically, studies have focused on improving survival outcomes, and recent radiation oncology clinical trials have incorporated HRQOL and cognitive assessments. We are now equipped with a battery of assessments in the radiation oncology clinic, but there is a lack of consensus regarding how to incorporate them in modern clinical practice. Herein, we present validated assessments for BM patients, current recommendations for future clinical studies, and treatment advances that have improved HRQOL and cognitive outcomes for BM patients