Optimasi Portofolio Resiko Menggunakan Model Markowitz MVO Dikaitkan dengan Keterbatasan Manusia dalam Memprediksi Masa Depan dalam Perspektif Al-Qur`an

Risk portfolio on modern finance has become increasingly technical, requiring the use of sophisticated mathematical tools in both research and practice. Since companies cannot insure themselves completely against risk, as human incompetence in predicting the future precisely that written in Al-Quran surah Luqman verse 34, they have to manage it to yield an optimal portfolio. The objective here is to minimize the variance among all portfolios, or alternatively, to maximize expected return among all portfolios that has at least a certain expected return. Furthermore, this study focuses on optimizing risk portfolio so called Markowitz MVO (Mean-Variance Optimization). Some theoretical frameworks for analysis are arithmetic mean, geometric mean, variance, covariance, linear programming, and quadratic programming. Moreover, finding a minimum variance portfolio produces a convex quadratic programming, that is minimizing the objective function ðð¥with constraintsð ð 𥠥 ðandð´ð¥ = ð. The outcome of this research is the solution of optimal risk portofolio in some investments that could be finished smoothly using MATLAB R2007b software together with its graphic analysis

Search for heavy resonances decaying to two Higgs bosons in final states containing four b quarks

A search is presented for narrow heavy resonances X decaying into pairs of Higgs bosons (H) in proton-proton collisions collected by the CMS experiment at the LHC at root s = 8 TeV. The data correspond to an integrated luminosity of 19.7 fb(-1). The search considers HH resonances with masses between 1 and 3 TeV, having final states of two b quark pairs. Each Higgs boson is produced with large momentum, and the hadronization products of the pair of b quarks can usually be reconstructed as single large jets. The background from multijet and t (t) over bar events is significantly reduced by applying requirements related to the flavor of the jet, its mass, and its substructure. The signal would be identified as a peak on top of the dijet invariant mass spectrum of the remaining background events. No evidence is observed for such a signal. Upper limits obtained at 95 confidence level for the product of the production cross section and branching fraction sigma(gg -> X) B(X -> HH -> b (b) over barb (b) over bar) range from 10 to 1.5 fb for the mass of X from 1.15 to 2.0 TeV, significantly extending previous searches. For a warped extra dimension theory with amass scale Lambda(R) = 1 TeV, the data exclude radion scalar masses between 1.15 and 1.55 TeV

Search for supersymmetry in events with one lepton and multiple jets in proton-proton collisions at root s=13 TeV

Peer reviewe

Measurement of the top quark mass using charged particles in pp collisions at root s=8 TeV

Peer reviewe

Physician practices and attitudes towards atopic dermatitis in Latin America: A cross-sectional study

Background: The prevalence of atopic dermatitis (AD) is increasing in developing countries. Different worldwide guidelines have been proposed, but their applicability for AD specialists in Latin American (LA) countries is unknown. Objective: The objective of this study was to explore the medical approach to treating AD in LA countries. Methods: The study population comprised AD specialists (allergists and dermatologists). They completed an electronic survey containing questions about the health system, diagnostic criteria, and pharmacotherapy approach to treating AD. The survey was constructed and validated by the Atopic Dermatitis Committee of the Latin American Society of Allergy Asthma and Immunology (SLAAI) in Spanish and Portuguese. Each member was responsible for distributing the questionnaire through different networks in their respective countries. Results: A total of 284 AD specialists from 13 LA countries completed the questionnaire; among them, 67% were allergists and 33% were dermatologists. Less than 50% of the AD specialists strictly followed guideline recommendations. Among the AD specialists, the European and North American guidelines were more frequently used, and only 16% followed LA guidelines. Dermatologists used the local guidelines less frequently than allergists. Most physicians did not routinely use AD assessment tools (55%). The frequency of the diagnostic tests depends on symptom severity. The availability of some systemic treatments, such as biologics and Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors, is not universal in all LA countries. Conclusion: There were marked differences between the specialists, and these differences seemed to be affected by their specialty and each country's healthcare system. New AD education strategies that consider the particularities of the region could allow patients to be more accurately managed. AD assessment tools may provide a way to enhance AD treatment and allow for shared decision-making, patient empowerment, and standardized care

Panta Rhei benchmark dataset: socio-hydrological data of paired events of floods and droughts

As the negative impacts of hydrological extremes increase in large parts of the world, a better understanding of the drivers of change in risk and impacts is essential for effective flood and drought risk management and climate adaptation. However, there is a lack of comprehensive, empirical data about the processes, interactions and feedbacks in complex human-water systems leading to flood and drought impacts. To fill this gap, we present an IAHS Panta Rhei benchmark dataset containing socio-hydrological data of paired events, i.e. two floods or two droughts that occurred in the same area (Kreibich et al. 2017, 2019). The contained 45 paired events occurred in 42 different study areas (in three study areas we have data on two paired events), which cover different socioeconomic and hydroclimatic contexts across all continents. The dataset is unique in covering floods and droughts, in the number of cases assessed and in the amount of qualitative and quantitative socio-hydrological data contained. References to the data sources are provided in 2022-002_Kreibich-et-al_Key_data_table.xlsx where possible. Based on templates, we collected detailed, review-style reports describing the event characteristics and processes in the case study areas, as well as various semi-quantitative data, categorised into management, hazard, exposure, vulnerability and impacts. Sources of the data were classified as follows: scientific study (peer-reviewed paper and PhD thesis), report (by governments, administrations, NGOs, research organisations, projects), own analysis by authors, based on a database (e.g. official statistics, monitoring data such as weather, discharge data, etc.), newspaper article, and expert judgement. The campaign to collect the information and data on paired events started at the EGU General Assembly in April 2019 in Vienna and was continued with talks promoting the paired event data collection at various conferences. Communication with the Panta Rhei community and other flood and drought experts identified through snowballing techniques was important. Thus, data on paired events were provided by professionals with excellent local knowledge of the events and risk management practices

Panta Rhei benchmark dataset: socio-hydrological data of paired events of floods and droughts (version 2)

As the negative impacts of hydrological extremes increase in large parts of the world, a better understanding of the drivers of change in risk and impacts is essential for effective flood and drought risk management and climate adaptation. However, there is a lack of comprehensive, empirical data about the processes, interactions and feedbacks in complex human-water systems leading to flood and drought impacts. To fill this gap, we present an IAHS Panta Rhei benchmark dataset containing socio-hydrological data of paired events, i.e. two floods or two droughts that occurred in the same area (Kreibich et al. 2017, 2019). The contained 45 paired events occurred in 42 different study areas (in three study areas we have data on two paired events), which cover different socioeconomic and hydroclimatic contexts across all continents. The dataset is unique in covering floods and droughts, in the number of cases assessed and in the amount of qualitative and quantitative socio-hydrological data contained. References to the data sources are provided in 2023-001_Kreibich-et-al_Key_data_table.xlsx where possible. Based on templates, we collected detailed, review-style reports describing the event characteristics and processes in the case study areas, as well as various semi-quantitative data, categorised into management, hazard, exposure, vulnerability and impacts. Sources of the data were classified as follows: scientific study (peer-reviewed paper and PhD thesis), report (by governments, administrations, NGOs, research organisations, projects), own analysis by authors, based on a database (e.g. official statistics, monitoring data such as weather, discharge data, etc.), newspaper article, and expert judgement. The campaign to collect the information and data on paired events started at the EGU General Assembly in April 2019 in Vienna and was continued with talks promoting the paired event data collection at various conferences. Communication with the Panta Rhei community and other flood and drought experts identified through snowballing techniques was important. Thus, data on paired events were provided by professionals with excellent local knowledge of the events and risk management practices

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination modelling for safe surgery to save lives: data from an international prospective cohort study

Background: Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could support safer elective surgery. Vaccine numbers are limited so this study aimed to inform their prioritization by modelling. Methods: The primary outcome was the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-related death in 1 year. NNVs were based on postoperative SARS-CoV-2 rates and mortality in an international cohort study (surgical patients), and community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and case fatality data (general population). NNV estimates were stratified by age (18-49, 50-69, 70 or more years) and type of surgery. Best- and worst-case scenarios were used to describe uncertainty. Results: NNVs were more favourable in surgical patients than the general population. The most favourable NNVs were in patients aged 70 years or more needing cancer surgery (351; best case 196, worst case 816) or non-cancer surgery (733; best case 407, worst case 1664). Both exceeded the NNV in the general population (1840; best case 1196, worst case 3066). NNVs for surgical patients remained favourable at a range of SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates in sensitivity analysis modelling. Globally, prioritizing preoperative vaccination of patients needing elective surgery ahead of the general population could prevent an additional 58 687 (best case 115 007, worst case 20 177) COVID-19-related deaths in 1 year. Conclusion: As global roll out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination proceeds, patients needing elective surgery should be prioritized ahead of the general population