Single Spin Asymmetry ANA_N in Polarized Proton-Proton Elastic Scattering at s=200\sqrt{s}=200 GeV

We report a high precision measurement of the transverse single spin asymmetry $A_N$ at the center of mass energy $\sqrt{s}=200$ GeV in elastic proton-proton scattering by the STAR experiment at RHIC. The $A_N$ was measured in the four-momentum transfer squared $t$ range $0.003 \leqslant |t| \leqslant 0.035$ \GeVcSq, the region of a significant interference between the electromagnetic and hadronic scattering amplitudes. The measured values of $A_N$ and its $t$-dependence are consistent with a vanishing hadronic spin-flip amplitude, thus providing strong constraints on the ratio of the single spin-flip to the non-flip amplitudes. Since the hadronic amplitude is dominated by the Pomeron amplitude at this $\sqrt{s}$, we conclude that this measurement addresses the question about the presence of a hadronic spin flip due to the Pomeron exchange in polarized proton-proton elastic scattering.Comment: 12 pages, 6 figure

The Public Repository of Xenografts enables discovery and randomized phase II-like trials in mice

More than 90% of drugs with preclinical activity fail in human trials, largely due to insufficient efficacy. We hypothesized that adequately powered trials of patient-derived xenografts (PDX) in mice could efficiently define therapeutic activity across heterogeneous tumors. To address this hypothesis, we established a large, publicly available repository of well-characterized leukemia and lymphoma PDXs that undergo orthotopic engraftment, called the Public Repository of Xenografts (PRoXe). PRoXe includes all de-identified information relevant to the primary specimens and the PDXs derived from them. Using this repository, we demonstrate that large studies of acute leukemia PDXs that mimic human randomized clinical trials can characterize drug efficacy and generate transcriptional, functional, and proteomic biomarkers in both treatment-naive and relapsed/refractory disease

J/ψ polarization in p+p collisions at s=200 GeV in STAR

AbstractWe report on a polarization measurement of inclusive J/ψ mesons in the di-electron decay channel at mid-rapidity at 2<pT<6 GeV/c in p+p collisions at s=200 GeV. Data were taken with the STAR detector at RHIC. The J/ψ polarization measurement should help to distinguish between different models of the J/ψ production mechanism since they predict different pT dependences of the J/ψ polarization. In this analysis, J/ψ polarization is studied in the helicity frame. The polarization parameter λθ measured at RHIC becomes smaller towards high pT, indicating more longitudinal J/ψ polarization as pT increases. The result is compared with predictions of presently available models

Measurement Of Charge Multiplicity Asymmetry Correlations In High-energy Nucleus-nucleus Collisions At Snn =200 Gev

A study is reported of the same- and opposite-sign charge-dependent azimuthal correlations with respect to the event plane in Au+Au collisions at sNN=200 GeV. The charge multiplicity asymmetries between the up/down and left/right hemispheres relative to the event plane are utilized. The contributions from statistical fluctuations and detector effects were subtracted from the (co-)variance of the observed charge multiplicity asymmetries. In the mid- to most-central collisions, the same- (opposite-) sign pairs are preferentially emitted in back-to-back (aligned on the same-side) directions. The charge separation across the event plane, measured by the difference, Δ, between the like- and unlike-sign up/down-left/right correlations, is largest near the event plane. The difference is found to be proportional to the event-by-event final-state particle ellipticity (via the observed second-order harmonic v2obs), where Δ=[1.3±1.4(stat)-1.0+4.0(syst)]×10- 5+[3.2±0.2(stat)-0.3+0.4(syst)]×10-3v2obs for 20-40% Au+Au collisions. The implications for the proposed chiral magnetic effect are discussed. © 2014 American Physical Society.894NRF-2012004024; National Research FoundationArsene, I., (2005) Nucl. Phys. A, 757, p. 1. , (BRAHMS Collaboration),. NUPABL 0375-9474 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.02.130Back, B.B., (2005) Nucl. Phys. A, 757, p. 28. , (PHOBOS Collaboration),. NUPABL 0375-9474 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.084Adams, J., (2005) Nucl. Phys. A, 757, p. 102. , (STAR Collaboration),. NUPABL 0375-9474 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.085Adcox, K., (2005) Nucl. Phys. A, 757, p. 184. , (PHENIX Collaboration),. NUPABL 0375-9474 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.086Lee, T.D., (1973) Phys. Rev. D, 8, p. 1226. , 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.8.1226Lee, T.D., Wick, G.C., (1974) Phys. Rev. D, 9, p. 2291. , 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.9.2291Morley, P.D., Schmidt, I.A., (1985) Z. Phys. C, 26, p. 627. , ZPCFD2 0170-9739 10.1007/BF01551807Kharzeev, D., Pisarski, R.D., Tytgat, M.H.G., (1998) Phys. Rev. Lett., 81, p. 512. , PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.512Kharzeev, D., (2006) Phys. Lett. B, 633, p. 260. , PYLBAJ 0370-2693 10.1016/j.physletb.2005.11.075Kharzeev, D., Zhitnitsky, A., (2007) Nucl. Phys. A, 797, p. 67. , NUPABL 0375-9474 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2007.10.001Fukushima, K., Kharzeev, D.E., Warringa, H.J., (2008) Phys. Rev. D, 78, p. 074033. , PRVDAQ 1550-7998 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.074033Kharzeev, D.E., McLerran, L.D., Warringa, H.J., (2008) Nucl. Phys. A, 803, p. 227. , NUPABL 0375-9474 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2008.02.298Voloshin, S.A., (2004) Phys. Rev. C, 70, p. 057901. , PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.70.057901Abelev, B.I., (2009) Phys. Rev. Lett., 103, p. 251601. , (STAR Collaboration),. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.251601Abelev, B.I., (2010) Phys. Rev. C, 81, p. 054908. , (STAR Collaboration),. PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.054908Abelev, B., (2013) Phys. Rev. Lett., 110, p. 012301. , (ALICE Collaboration),. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.012301Wang, Q., (2012), http://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/theses/phd/quanwang, Ph.D. thesis, Purdue University, arXiv:1205.4638Ackermann, K.H., (2003) Nucl. Instrum. Methods A, 499, p. 624. , (STAR Collaboration),. NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/S0168-9002(02)01960-5Bieser, F.S., (2003) Nucl. Instrum. Methods A, 499, p. 766. , (STAR Collaboration),. NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/S0168-9002(02)01974-5Adler, C., (2003) Nucl. Instrum. Methods A, 499, p. 433. , NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2003.08.112Adams, J., (2004) Phys. Rev. Lett., 92, p. 112301. , (STAR Collaboration),. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.112301Abelev, B.I., (2009) Phys. Rev. C, 79, p. 034909. , (STAR Collaboration),. PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.79.034909Ackermann, K.H., (1999) Nucl. Phys. A, 661, p. 681. , (STAR Collaboration),. NUPABL 0375-9474 10.1016/S0375-9474(99)85117-3Anderson, M., (2003) Nucl. Instrum. Methods A, 499, p. 659. , NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/S0168-9002(02)01964-2Poskanzer, A.M., Voloshin, S.A., (1998) Phys. Rev. C, 58, p. 1671. , PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.58.1671Wang, G., (2005), http://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/theses/ph-d/gang-wang, Ph.D. thesis, UCLAAdamczyk, L., (2012) Phys. Rev. Lett., 108, p. 202301. , (STAR Collaboration),. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.202301Wang, F., (2010) Phys. Rev. C, 81, p. 064902. , PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.064902Pratt, S., Schlichting, S., Gavin, S., (2011) Phys. Rev. C, 84, p. 024909. , PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.024909Adams, J., (2005) Phys. Rev. Lett., 95, p. 152301. , (STAR Collaboration),. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.152301Aggarwal, M.M., (2010) Phys. Rev. C, 82, p. 024912. , (STAR collaboration),. PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.024912Abelev, B.I., (2009) Phys. Rev. Lett., 102, p. 052302. , (STAR Collaboration),. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.052302Abelev, B.I., (2009) Phys. Rev. C, 80, p. 064912. , (STAR Collaboration),. PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.80.064912Abelev, B.I., (2010) Phys. Rev. Lett., 105, p. 022301. , (STAR Collaboration),. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.022301Agakishiev, H., (STAR Collaboration), arXiv:1010.0690Petersen, H., Renk, T., Bass, S.A., (2011) Phys. Rev. C, 83, p. 014916. , PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.83.014916Adamczyk, L., (2013) Phys. Rev. C, 88, p. 064911. , (STAR Collaboration),. 10.1103/PhysRevC.88.064911Asakawa, M., Majumder, A., Müller, B., (2010) Phys. Rev. C, 81, p. 064912. , PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.064912Bzdak, A., Koch, V., Liao, J., (2010) Phys. Rev. C, 81, pp. 031901R. , PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.031901Liao, J., Koch, V., Bzdak, A., (2010) Phys. Rev. C, 82, p. 054902. , PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.054902Ma, G.-L., Zhang, B., (2011) Phys. Lett. B, 700, p. 39. , PYLBAJ 0370-2693 10.1016/j.physletb.2011.04.057Voloshin, S.A., (2010) Phys. Rev. Lett., 105, p. 172301. , PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.17230

Fluctuations Of Charge Separation Perpendicular To The Event Plane And Local Parity Violation In S Nn = 200 Gev Au + Au Collisions At The Bnl Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider

Previous experimental results based on data (∼15×106 events) collected by the STAR detector at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider suggest event-by-event charge-separation fluctuations perpendicular to the event plane in noncentral heavy-ion collisions. Here we present the correlator previously used split into its two component parts to reveal correlations parallel and perpendicular to the event plane. The results are from a high-statistics 200-GeV Au + Au collisions data set (57×106 events) collected by the STAR experiment. We explicitly count units of charge separation from which we find clear evidence for more charge-separation fluctuations perpendicular than parallel to the event plane. We also employ a modified correlator to study the possible P-even background in same- and opposite-charge correlations, and find that the P-even background may largely be explained by momentum conservation and collective motion. © 2013 American Physical Society.886NRF-2012004024; National Research FoundationLee, T.D., Yang, C.N., (1956) Phys. Rev., 104. , 1, 254. 0031-899X PHRVAO 10.1103/PhysRev.104.254Vafa, C., Witten, E., (1984) Phys. Rev. Lett., 53. , 2, 535. 0031-9007 PRLTAO 10.1103/PhysRevLett.53.535Lee, T.D., (1973) Phys. Rev. D, 8. , 3, 1226. 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.8.1226Lee, T.D., Wick, G.C., (1974) Phys. Rev. D, 9. , 4, 2291. 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.9.2291Kharzeev, D., Parity violation in hot QCD: Why it can happen, and how to look for it (2006) Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics, 633 (2-3), pp. 260-264. , DOI 10.1016/j.physletb.2005.11.075, PII S0370269305017430Kharzeev, D., Zhitnitsky, A., (2007) Nucl. Phys. A, 797. , 6, 67. 0375-9474 NUPABL 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2007.10.001Kharzeev, D., McLerran, L.D., Warringa, H.J., (2008) Nucl. Phys. A, 803. , 7, 227. 0375-9474 NUPABL 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2008.02.298Fukushima, K., Kharzeev, D.E., Warringa, H.J., (2008) Phys. Rev. D, 78. , 8, 074033. 1550-7998 PRVDAQ 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.074033Abelev, B.I., (2009) Phys. Rev. Lett., 103. , 9 (STAR Collaboration), 251601. 0031-9007 PRLTAO 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103. 251601Abelev, B.I., (2010) Phys. Rev. C, 81. , 10 (STAR Collaboration), 054908. 0556-2813 PRVCAN 10.1103/PhysRevC.81. 054908Abelev, B.I., (2013) Phys. Rev. Lett., 110. , 11 (ALICE Collaboration), 012301. 0031-9007 PRLTAO 10.1103/PhysRevLett. 110.012301Ackermann, K.H., Adams, N., Adler, C., Ahammed, Z., Ahmad, S., Allgower, C., Amonett, J., Harris, J.W., STAR detector overview (2003) Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 499 (2-3), pp. 624-632. , DOI 10.1016/S0168-9002(02)01960-5Adams, J., Aggarwal, M.M., Ahammed, Z., Amonett, J., Anderson, B.D., Arkhipkin, D., Averichev, G.S., Bai, Y., Directed flow in Au+Au collisions at sNN=62.4 GeV (2006) Physical Review C - Nuclear Physics, 73 (3), pp. 1-7. , http://oai.aps.org/oai?verb=GetRecord&Identifier=oai:aps.org: PhysRevC.73.034903&metadataPrefix=oai_apsmeta_2, DOI 10.1103/PhysRevC.73.034903, 034903Adamczyk, L., (2012) Phys. Rev. Lett., 108. , 14 (STAR Collaboration), 202301. 0031-9007 PRLTAO 10.1103/PhysRevLett. 108.202301Voloshin, S.A., Parity violation in hot QCD: How to detect it (2004) Physical Review C - Nuclear Physics, 70 (5), pp. 0579011-0579012. , DOI 10.1103/PhysRevC.70.057901, 057901Poskanzer, A.M., Voloshin, S.A., Methods for analyzing anisotropic flow in relativistic nuclear collisions (1998) Physical Review C - Nuclear Physics, 58 (3), pp. 1671-1678. , DOI 10.1103/PhysRevC.58.1671Ollitrault, J.-Y., Poskanzer, A.M., Voloshin, S.A., (2009) Phys. Rev. C, 80. , 17, 014904. 0556-2813 PRVCAN 10.1103/PhysRevC.80.014904Pratt, S., Schlichting, S., Gavin, S., (2011) Phys. Rev. C, 84. , 18, 024909. 0556-2813 PRVCAN 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.024909Schlichting, S., Pratt, S., (2011) Phys. Rev. C, 83. , 19, 014913. 0556-2813 PRVCAN 10.1103/PhysRevC.83.014913Selyuzhenkov, I., Voloshin, S., (2008) Phys. Rev. C, 77. , 20, 034904. 0556-2813 PRVCAN 10.1103/PhysRevC.77.034904Kisiel, A., (2006) Comput. Phys. Commun., 174. , 21, 669. 0010-4655 CPHCBZ 10.1016/j.cpc.2005.11.010Bzdak, A., Koch, V., Liao, J., (2011) Phys. Rev. C, 83. , 22, 014905. 0556-2813 PRVCAN 10.1103/PhysRevC.83.014905Adams, J., Aggarwal, M.M., Ahammed, Z., Amonett, J., Anderson, B.D., Arkhipkin, D., Averichev, G.S., Grebenyuk, O., Azimuthal anisotropy in Au+Au collisions at sNN=200GeV (2005) Physical Review C - Nuclear Physics, 72 (1), pp. 1-23. , http://oai.aps.org/oai/?verb=ListRecords&metadataPrefix= oai_apsmeta_2&set=journal:PRC:72, DOI 10.1103/PhysRevC.72.014904, 014904Ray, R.L., Longacre, R.S., 24, arXiv:nucl-ex/0008009 and private communicationKopylov, G.I., Podgoretsky, M.I., Kopylov, G.I., Podgoretsky, M.I., (1972) Sov. J. Nucl. Phys., 15. , 25a, 219 ()25b, Phys. Lett. B. 50, 472 (1974) 0370-2693 PYLBAJ 10.1016/0370-2693(74)90263-925c, Sov. J. Part. Nucl. 20, 266 (1989)Goldhaber, G., Goldhaber, S., Lee, W., Pais, A., (1960) Phys. Rev., 120. , 26, 325. 0031-899X PHRVAO 10.1103/PhysRev.120.32

Supplementary Material for: Variation in ischemic stroke payments in the USA: a Medicare beneficiary study

Introduction: The growing cost of stroke care has created the need for outcome-oriented and cost-saving payment models. Identifying imbalances in the current reimbursement model is an essential step towards designing impactful value-based reimbursement strategies. This study describes the variation in reimbursement fees for ischemic stroke management across the United States. Methods: This Medicare Fee-For-Service claims study examines USA beneficiaries who suffered an ischemic stroke from 2021Q1 to 2022Q2 identified using the Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Groups (MS-DRGs). Demographic national and regional US data were extracted from the Census Bureau. The MS-DRG codes were grouped into four categories according to treatment modality and clinical complexity. Our primary outcome of interest was payments made across individual US states and US geographic regions, assessed by computing the mean incremental payment in cases of comparable complexity. Differences between states for each MS-DRG were statistically evaluated using a linear regression model of the logarithmic transformed payments. Results: 227,273 ischemic stroke cases were included in our analysis. Significant variations were observed among all DRG-groups defined by medical complexity, treatment modality, and states (p<0.001). Differences in mean payment per case with the same MS-DRG vary by as high as 500% among individual states. Although higher payment rates were observed in MS-DRG codes with Major Comorbidities or Complexity, the variation was more expressive for codes without MCC. It was not possible to identify a standard mean incremental fee at a state level. At a regional level, the Northeast registered the highest fees, followed by the West, Midwest, and South, which correlates with poverty rates and median household income in the regions. Discussion/Conclusions: The payment variability observed across USA states suggests that the current reimbursement system needs to be aligned with stroke treatment costs. Future studies may go one step further to evaluate accurate stroke management costs to guide policymakers in introducing health policies that promote better care for stroke patients

Efficacy of Messenger RNA-1273 Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Acquisition in Young Adults From March to December 2021

Background. The efficacy of messenger RNA (mRNA)-1273 against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is not well defined, particularly among young adults. Methods. Adults aged 18-29 years with no known history of SARS-CoV-2 infection or prior vaccination for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were recruited from 44 US sites from 24 March to 13 September 2021 and randomized 1:1 to immediate vaccination (receipt of 2 doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine at months 0 and 1) or the standard of care (receipt of COVID-19 vaccine). Randomized participants were followed up for SARS-CoV-2 infection measured by nasal swab testing and symptomatic COVID-19 measured by nasal swab testing plus symptom assessment and assessed for the primary efficacy outcome. A vaccine-declined observational group was also recruited from 16 June to 8 November 2021 and followed up for SARS-CoV-2 infection as specified for the randomized participants. Results. The study enrolled 1149 in the randomized arms and 311 in the vaccine-declined group and collected >122 000 nasal swab samples. Based on randomized participants, the efficacy of 2 doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infection was 52.6% (95% confidence interval, -14.1% to 80.3%), with the majority of infections due to the Delta variant. Vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 was 71.0% (95% confidence interval, -9.5% to 92.3%). Precision was limited owing to curtailed study enrollment and off-study vaccination censoring. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the vaccine-declined group was 1.8 times higher than in the standard-of-care group. Conclusions. mRNA-1273 vaccination reduced the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection from March to September 2021, but vaccination was only one factor influencing risk. © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Open access journalThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Recommendations from Gynaecological (GYN) GEC-ESTRO Working Group (IV): Basic principles and parameters for MR imaging within the frame of image based adaptive cervix cancer brachytherapy

The GYN GEC-ESTRO working group issued three parts of recommendations and highlighted the pivotal role of MRI for the successful implementation of 3D image-based cervical cancer brachytherapy (BT). The main advantage of MRI as an imaging modality is its superior soft tissue depiction quality. To exploit the full potential of MRI for the better ability of the radiation oncologist to make the appropriate choice for the BT application technique and to accurately define the target volumes and the organs at risk, certain MR imaging criteria have to be fulfilled. Technical requirements, patient preparation, as well as image acquisition protocols have to be tailored to the needs of 3D image-based BT. The present recommendation is focused on the general principles of MR imaging for 3D image-based BT