Renewable, ethical? Assessing the energy justice potential of renewable electricity

Energy justice is increasingly being used as a framework to conceptualize the impacts of energy decision making in more holistic ways and to consider the social implications in terms of existing ethical values. Similarly, renewable energy technologies are increasingly being promoted for their environmental and social benefits. However, little work has been done to systematically examine the extent to which, in what ways and in what contexts, renewable energy technologies can contribute to achieving energy justice. This paper assesses the potential of renewable electricity technologies to address energy justice in various global contexts via a systematic review of existing studies analyzed in terms of the principles and dimensions of energy justice. Based on publications including peer reviewed academic literature, books, and in some cases reports by government or international organizations, we assess renewable electricity technologies in both grid integrated and off-grid use contexts. We conduct our investigation through the rubric of the affirmative and prohibitive principles of energy justice and in terms of its temporal, geographic, socio-political, economic, and technological dimensions. Renewable electricity technology development has and continue to have different impacts in different social contexts, and by considering the different impacts explicitly across global contexts, including differences between rural and urban contexts, this paper contributes to identifying and understanding how, in what ways, and in what particular conditions and circumstances renewable electricity technologies may correspond with or work to promote energy justice

Erratum to: 36th International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13054-016-1208-6.]

Effects of Data Quality Vetoes on a Search for Compact Binary Coalescences in Advanced LIGO's First Observing Run

The first observing run of Advanced LIGO spanned 4 months, from September 12, 2015 to January 19, 2016, during which gravitational waves were directly detected from two binary black hole systems, namely GW150914 and GW151226. Confident detection of gravitational waves requires an understanding of instrumental transients and artifacts that can reduce the sensitivity of a search. Studies of the quality of the detector data yield insights into the cause of instrumental artifacts and data quality vetoes specific to a search are produced to mitigate the effects of problematic data. In this paper, the systematic removal of noisy data from analysis time is shown to improve the sensitivity of searches for compact binary coalescences. The output of the PyCBC pipeline, which is a python-based code package used to search for gravitational wave signals from compact binary coalescences, is used as a metric for improvement. GW150914 was a loud enough signal that removing noisy data did not improve its significance. However, the removal of data with excess noise decreased the false alarm rate of GW151226 by more than two orders of magnitude, from 1 in 770 years to less than 1 in 186000 years.Comment: 27 pages, 13 figures, published versio

A global reference for human genetic variation

The 1000 Genomes Project set out to provide a comprehensive description of common human genetic variation by applying whole-genome sequencing to a diverse set of individuals from multiple populations. Here we report completion of the project, having reconstructed the genomes of 2,504 individuals from 26 populations using a combination of low-coverage whole-genome sequencing, deep exome sequencing, and dense microarray genotyping. We characterized a broad spectrum of genetic variation, in total over 88 million variants (84.7 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), 3.6 million short insertions/deletions (indels), and 60,000 structural variants), all phased onto high-quality haplotypes. This resource includes >99% of SNP variants with a frequency of >1% for a variety of ancestries. We describe the distribution of genetic variation across the global sample, and discuss the implications for common disease studies.We thank the many people who were generous with contributing their samples to the project: the African Caribbean in Barbados; Bengali in Bangladesh; British in England and Scotland; Chinese Dai in Xishuangbanna, China; Colombians in Medellin, Colombia; Esan in Nigeria; Finnish in Finland; Gambian in Western Division – Mandinka; Gujarati Indians in Houston, Texas, USA; Han Chinese in Beijing, China; Iberian populations in Spain; Indian Telugu in the UK; Japanese in Tokyo, Japan; Kinh in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; Luhya in Webuye, Kenya; Mende in Sierra Leone; people with African ancestry in the southwest USA; people with Mexican ancestry in Los Angeles, California, USA; Peruvians in Lima, Peru; Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico; Punjabi in Lahore, Pakistan; southern Han Chinese; Sri Lankan Tamil in the UK; Toscani in Italia; Utah residents (CEPH) with northern and western European ancestry; and Yoruba in Ibadan, Nigeria. Many thanks to the people who contributed to this project: P. Maul, T. Maul, and C. Foster; Z. Chong, X. Fan, W. Zhou, and T. Chen; N. Sengamalay, S. Ott, L. Sadzewicz, J. Liu, and L. Tallon; L. Merson; O. Folarin, D. Asogun, O. Ikpwonmosa, E. Philomena, G. Akpede, S. Okhobgenin, and O. Omoniwa; the staff of the Institute of Lassa Fever Research and Control (ILFRC), Irrua Specialist Teaching Hospital, Irrua, Edo State, Nigeria; A. Schlattl and T. Zichner; S. Lewis, E. Appelbaum, and L. Fulton; A. Yurovsky and I. Padioleau; N. Kaelin and F. Laplace; E. Drury and H. Arbery; A. Naranjo, M. Victoria Parra, and C. Duque; S. Däkel, B. Lenz, and S. Schrinner; S. Bumpstead; and C. Fletcher-Hoppe. Funding for this work was from the Wellcome Trust Core Award 090532/Z/09/Z and Senior Investigator Award 095552/Z/11/Z (P.D.), and grants WT098051 (R.D.), WT095908 and WT109497 (P.F.), WT086084/Z/08/Z and WT100956/Z/13/Z (G.M.), WT097307 (W.K.), WT0855322/Z/08/Z (R.L.), WT090770/Z/09/Z (D.K.), the Wellcome Trust Major Overseas program in Vietnam grant 089276/Z.09/Z (S.D.), the Medical Research Council UK grant G0801823 (J.L.M.), the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council grants BB/I02593X/1 (G.M.) and BB/I021213/1 (A.R.L.), the British Heart Foundation (C.A.A.), the Monument Trust (J.H.), the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (P.F.), the European Research Council grant 617306 (J.L.M.), the Chinese 863 Program 2012AA02A201, the National Basic Research program of China 973 program no. 2011CB809201, 2011CB809202 and 2011CB809203, Natural Science Foundation of China 31161130357, the Shenzhen Municipal Government of China grant ZYC201105170397A (J.W.), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Operating grant 136855 and Canada Research Chair (S.G.), Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (M.K.D.), a Le Fonds de Recherche duQuébec-Santé (FRQS) research fellowship (A.H.), Genome Quebec (P.A.), the Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation – Ontario Institute for Cancer Research Investigator Award (P.A., J.S.), the Quebec Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation, and Exports grant PSR-SIIRI-195 (P.A.), the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) grants 0315428A and 01GS08201 (R.H.), the Max Planck Society (H.L., G.M., R.S.), BMBF-EPITREAT grant 0316190A (R.H., M.L.), the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) Emmy Noether Grant KO4037/1-1 (J.O.K.), the Beatriu de Pinos Program grants 2006 BP-A 10144 and 2009 BP-B 00274 (M.V.), the Spanish National Institute for Health Research grant PRB2 IPT13/0001-ISCIII-SGEFI/FEDER (A.O.), Ewha Womans University (C.L.), the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Fellowship number PE13075 (N.P.), the Louis Jeantet Foundation (E.T.D.), the Marie Curie Actions Career Integration grant 303772 (C.A.), the Swiss National Science Foundation 31003A_130342 and NCCR “Frontiers in Genetics” (E.T.D.), the University of Geneva (E.T.D., T.L., G.M.), the US National Institutes of Health National Center for Biotechnology Information (S.S.) and grants U54HG3067 (E.S.L.), U54HG3273 and U01HG5211 (R.A.G.), U54HG3079 (R.K.W., E.R.M.), R01HG2898 (S.E.D.), R01HG2385 (E.E.E.), RC2HG5552 and U01HG6513 (G.T.M., G.R.A.), U01HG5214 (A.C.), U01HG5715 (C.D.B.), U01HG5718 (M.G.), U01HG5728 (Y.X.F.), U41HG7635 (R.K.W., E.E.E., P.H.S.), U41HG7497 (C.L., M.A.B., K.C., L.D., E.E.E., M.G., J.O.K., G.T.M., S.A.M., R.E.M., J.L.S., K.Y.), R01HG4960 and R01HG5701 (B.L.B.), R01HG5214 (G.A.), R01HG6855 (S.M.), R01HG7068 (R.E.M.), R01HG7644 (R.D.H.), DP2OD6514 (P.S.), DP5OD9154 (J.K.), R01CA166661 (S.E.D.), R01CA172652 (K.C.), P01GM99568 (S.R.B.), R01GM59290 (L.B.J., M.A.B.), R01GM104390 (L.B.J., M.Y.Y.), T32GM7790 (C.D.B., A.R.M.), P01GM99568 (S.R.B.), R01HL87699 and R01HL104608 (K.C.B.), T32HL94284 (J.L.R.F.), and contracts HHSN268201100040C (A.M.R.) and HHSN272201000025C (P.S.), Harvard Medical School Eleanor and Miles Shore Fellowship (K.L.), Lundbeck Foundation Grant R170-2014-1039 (K.L.), NIJ Grant 2014-DN-BX-K089 (Y.E.), the Mary Beryl Patch Turnbull Scholar Program (K.C.B.), NSF Graduate Research Fellowship DGE-1147470 (G.D.P.), the Simons Foundation SFARI award SF51 (M.W.), and a Sloan Foundation Fellowship (R.D.H.). E.E.E. is an investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute

Evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults with suspected appendicitis

Background Appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. The aim of this study was to determine whether existing risk prediction models can reliably identify patients presenting to hospital in the UK with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain who are at low risk of appendicitis. Methods A systematic search was completed to identify all existing appendicitis risk prediction models. Models were validated using UK data from an international prospective cohort study that captured consecutive patients aged 16–45 years presenting to hospital with acute RIF in March to June 2017. The main outcome was best achievable model specificity (proportion of patients who did not have appendicitis correctly classified as low risk) whilst maintaining a failure rate below 5 per cent (proportion of patients identified as low risk who actually had appendicitis). Results Some 5345 patients across 154 UK hospitals were identified, of which two‐thirds (3613 of 5345, 67·6 per cent) were women. Women were more than twice as likely to undergo surgery with removal of a histologically normal appendix (272 of 964, 28·2 per cent) than men (120 of 993, 12·1 per cent) (relative risk 2·33, 95 per cent c.i. 1·92 to 2·84; P < 0·001). Of 15 validated risk prediction models, the Adult Appendicitis Score performed best (cut‐off score 8 or less, specificity 63·1 per cent, failure rate 3·7 per cent). The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score performed best for men (cut‐off score 2 or less, specificity 24·7 per cent, failure rate 2·4 per cent). Conclusion Women in the UK had a disproportionate risk of admission without surgical intervention and had high rates of normal appendicectomy. Risk prediction models to support shared decision‐making by identifying adults in the UK at low risk of appendicitis were identified

Dynamic transmission economic evaluation of infectious disease interventions in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic literature review

Economic evaluation using dynamic transmission models is important for capturing the indirect effects of infectious disease interventions. We examine the use of these methods in low- and middle-income countries, where infectious diseases constitute a major burden. This review is comprised of two parts: (1) a summary of dynamic transmission economic evaluations across all disease areas published between 2011 and mid-2014 and (2) an in-depth review of mosquito-borne disease studies focusing on health economic methods and reporting. Studies were identified through a systematic search of the MEDLINE database and supplemented by reference list screening. Fifty-seven studies were eligible for inclusion in the all-disease review. The most common subject disease was HIV/AIDS, followed by malaria. A diverse range of modelling methods, outcome metrics and sensitivity analyses were used, indicating little standardisation. Seventeen studies were included in the mosquito-borne disease review. With notable exceptions, most studies did not employ economic evaluation methods beyond calculating a cost-effectiveness ratio or net benefit. Many did not adhere to health care economic evaluations reporting guidelines, particularly with respect to full model reporting and uncertainty analysis. We present a summary of the state-of-the-art and offer recommendations for improved implementation and reporting of health economic methods in this crossover discipline. � 2016 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd

Dynamic transmission economic evaluation of infectious disease interventions in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic literature review

Economic evaluation using dynamic transmission models is important for capturing the indirect effects of infectious disease interventions. We examine the use of these methods in low- and middle-income countries, where infectious diseases constitute a major burden. This review is comprised of two parts: (1) a summary of dynamic transmission economic evaluations across all disease areas published between 2011 and mid-2014 and (2) an in-depth review of mosquito-borne disease studies focusing on health economic methods and reporting. Studies were identified through a systematic search of the MEDLINE database and supplemented by reference list screening. Fifty-seven studies were eligible for inclusion in the all-disease review. The most common subject disease was HIV/AIDS, followed by malaria. A diverse range of modelling methods, outcome metrics and sensitivity analyses were used, indicating little standardisation. Seventeen studies were included in the mosquito-borne disease review. With notable exceptions, most studies did not employ economic evaluation methods beyond calculating a cost-effectiveness ratio or net benefit. Many did not adhere to health care economic evaluations reporting guidelines, particularly with respect to full model reporting and uncertainty analysis. We present a summary of the state-of-the-art and offer recommendations for improved implementation and reporting of health economic methods in this crossover discipline. � 2016 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd