On the (non-)existence of polynomial kernels for Pl-free edge modification problems

Given a graph G = (V,E) and an integer k, an edge modification problem for a graph property P consists in deciding whether there exists a set of edges F of size at most k such that the graph H = (V,E \vartriangle F) satisfies the property P. In the P edge-completion problem, the set F of edges is constrained to be disjoint from E; in the P edge-deletion problem, F is a subset of E; no constraint is imposed on F in the P edge-edition problem. A number of optimization problems can be expressed in terms of graph modification problems which have been extensively studied in the context of parameterized complexity. When parameterized by the size k of the edge set F, it has been proved that if P is an hereditary property characterized by a finite set of forbidden induced subgraphs, then the three P edge-modification problems are FPT. It was then natural to ask whether these problems also admit a polynomial size kernel. Using recent lower bound techniques, Kratsch and Wahlstrom answered this question negatively. However, the problem remains open on many natural graph classes characterized by forbidden induced subgraphs. Kratsch and Wahlstrom asked whether the result holds when the forbidden subgraphs are paths or cycles and pointed out that the problem is already open in the case of P4-free graphs (i.e. cographs). This paper provides positive and negative results in that line of research. We prove that parameterized cograph edge modification problems have cubic vertex kernels whereas polynomial kernels are unlikely to exist for the Pl-free and Cl-free edge-deletion problems for large enough l

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries