Photovoltaic Potential Estimation by Means of Data Mining in Four Colombian Cities

En este trabajo se analiza el potencial fotovoltaico en cuatro ciudades colombianas, gracias a la información recopilada en Bogotá, Cúcuta, Manizales y Pasto. La metodología propuesta utiliza técnicas de agrupamiento que se implementan mediante el uso del software MATLAB®. Se exponen dos algoritmos de comparación presentados: K-means y Fuzzy C-means, y uno de visualización que es el Análisis de componentes principales (PCA) que ayuda en el análisis de resultados. Este artículo muestra estudios previos relacionados con la minería de datos y se describen los algoritmos mencionados anteriormente. Por otro lado, los resultados y discusión más relevantes, que corresponden a la factibilidad de implementación de las micro-redes, se determinan mediante el cálculo del Factor de Capacidad.This work analyzes the photovoltaic potential of four cities in Colombia—Bogotá, Cúcuta, Manizales, and Pasto—using information collected in situ and data mining strategies. The methodology of this study is based on clustering techniques implemented in MATLAB® software. Two comparison algorithms are presented: K-means, Fuzzy C-means, and an additional visualization algorithm, i.e., Principal Component Analysis (PCA), which supports results analysis. This article explores published studies regarding data mining and it describes the previously mentioned algorithms.  On the other hand, the most relevant results and discussion, which are related to the feasibility of implementation of micro-grids, are determined by calculating the Capacity Factor

Libro Rojo de Peces Dulceacuícolas de Colombia (2012)

En el marco del Plan Operativo Anual (2010 – 2011 - 2012) del Programa de Biología de la Conservación y Uso de la Biodiversidad del Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, se llevó a cabo la actualización del Libro Rojo de peces dulceacuícolas de Colombia o proceso de evaluación del riesgo de extinción y evolución del estado de conservación de las especies de peces dulceacuícolas, como también es conocido. Esta iniciativa se llevó a cabo con el aval del Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial – MAVT (hoy Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible – MADS) y la participación del Instituto de Ciencias Naturales de la Universidad Nacional de Colombia, WWF Colombia, y la Universidad de Manizales. En este proceso contribuyeron más de 50 investigadores, vinculados a unas 30 instituciones académicas, gubernamentales y no gubernamentales.Bogotá, D. C

Biodiversity 2016. Status and Trends of Colombian Continental Biodiversity

This third volume of the annual report on biodiversity in Colombia continues the editorial line that begun in 2014. Using novel analytical and graphic proposals, these reports have the goal of communicating the contents to a broad public, making it available for discussion without sacrificing the quality of information. The challenge of communication continues to be a major part of the institutional project, and the new languages with which we are learning to communicate with society and other institutions are an experiment that we expect to be increasingly gratifying. The report for 2017 is already under construction and it counts on new digital technologies so the power of a colombian vital connection may be entirely expressed. The included content evidences that we are still far away from having a systematic follow-up about most of the topics related to the management of biodiversity and ecosystem services, which is the only way to evaluate the effectiveness of policies and investments made by society. In fact, a limitation that is recognized is that of identifying positive or negative changes that affect different levels of organization of life on this planet; therefore, our global navigation route of the Aichi targets is still to be verified. An additional purpose of this process includes the invitation of all Colombians to contribute in constructing and maintaining basic monitoring indicators for management since it is impossible to identify long-term trends of flora and fauna in the country without the support of institutions, researchers, and citizens. This challenge is immense in a megadiverse country such as Colombia. For this reason, the report will continue to open its pages to experts, and even indigenous peoples or local communities, for them to present their perspectives about environmental change and its effects on biodiversity in a systematic and documented manner. This has the objective of stimulating the commitment of everyone in the management of biodiversity and ecosystem services. The only way of overcoming the risk of extinction is through the active process of social learning in which all sectors assume a part of the complex responsibility in protecting the forms of life of the country, a roughly counted tenth of all creatures on Earth. I thank all the people that contributed in this Report, those who have supported us in the phases of production, and all readers and users, who are the ultimate judges of its utility.Bogotá, D. C

Biodiversidad 2016. Estado y Tendencias de la Biodiversidad Continental de Colombia

Esta tercera entrega del reporte anual de la biodiversidad en Colombia profundiza en la línea editorial iniciada el año 2014 mediante nuevas propuestas analíticas y gráficas, con la intención de garantizar que la información llegue a todos los públicos y pueda ser discutida de manera amena sin sacrificio de calidad. La apuesta comunicativa sigue siendo central en el proyecto institucional y los nuevos lenguajes con los que estamos aprendiendo a conversar con la sociedad y las instituciones son un experimento que esperamos sea cada vez más satisfactorio: ya estamos construyendo la versión 2017 con el apoyo de las nuevas tecnologías digitales de manera que la potencia de la conexión vital colombiana se exprese en toda su capacidad. Por los contenidos es evidente que aún distamos mucho de tener una capacidad de seguimiento sistemático para la mayoría de temas relativos a la gestión de la biodiversidad y los servicios ecosistémicos, la única manera de evaluar si las medidas de política y las inversiones que realiza la sociedad están teniendo los efectos deseados. De hecho, parte de las limitaciones reconocidas por robustamente los cambios positivos o negativos que afectan los diferentes niveles de organización de la vida planetaria, por lo cual las mismas metas de Aichi, nuestra carta de navegación global, están pendientes de verificación. Un propósito adicional de este proceso es la invitación a todos los colombianos para contribuir con la construcción y alimentación de los indicadores básicos de seguimiento a la gestión, ya que es imposible identificar las tendencias de largo plazo en que están inmersas la flora y fauna colombianas sin el apoyo de las instituciones, los investigadores y los ciudadanos: en el país de la megadiversidad, el reto es inmenso. Por este motivo, este reporte irá abriendo sus páginas a expertos, incluso indígenas o de comunidades locales, para que presenten de manera sistemática y documentada sus perspectivas del cambio ambiental y sus efectos en la biodiversidad, con el ánimo de promover el compromiso de todos en su gestión. La única manera de superar el riesgo de extinción es mediante un activo proceso de aprendizajes sociales que haga que todos los sectores asuman una parte de la compleja responsabilidad que significa proteger todas las formas de vida del país, una décima parte mal contada de las planetarias. Agradezco a las decenas de personas que contribuyeron con este reporte, a quienes nos han apoyado en todas las etapas de producción y a sus lectores y usuarios, quienes son en último término los jueces de su utilidad.Bogotá, D. C

Global variation in postoperative mortality and complications after cancer surgery: a multicentre, prospective cohort study in 82 countries

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licenseBackground: 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods: This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03471494. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation: Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit

Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground: Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide. Methods: A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study—a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·85 [95% CI 2·58–5·75]; p<0·0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63·0% vs 82·7%; OR 0·35 [0·23–0·53]; p<0·0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer. Interpretation: Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research