28 research outputs found
Is the Sun a Magnet?
It has been argued (Gough and McIntyre in Nature394, 755, 1998) that the only way for the radiative interior of the Sun to be rotating uniformly in the face of the differentially rotating convection zone is for it to be pervaded by a large-scale magnetic field, a field which is responsible also for the thinness of the tachocline. It is most likely that this field is the predominantly dipolar residual component of a tangled primordial field that was present in the interstellar medium from which the Sun condensed (Braithwaite and Spruit in Nature431, 819, 2004), and that advection by the meridional flow in the tachocline has caused the dipole axis to be inclined from the axis of rotation by about 60∘ (Gough in Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn., 106, 429, 2012). It is suggested here that, notwithstanding its turbulent passage through the convection zone, a vestige of that field is transmitted by the solar wind to Earth, where it modulates the geomagnetic field in a periodic way. The field variation reflects the inner rotation of the Sun, and, unlike turbulent-dynamo-generated fields, must maintain phase. I report here a new look at an earlier analysis of the geomagnetic field by Svalgaard and Wilcox (Solar Phys.41, 461, 1975), which reveals evidence for appropriate phase coherence, thereby adding support to the tachocline theory
Development and implementation of a remote follow-up plan for colorectal cancer patients
Contains fulltext :
218556.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access
A note on the symmetric and antisymmetric constituents of weakly nonlinear solutions of a classical wind-driven ocean circulation model
Detection, Treatment, and Survival of Pancreatic Cancer Recurrence in the Netherlands A Nationwide Analysis
Objective: To evaluate whether detection of recurrent pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in an early, asymptomatic stage increases the number of patients receiving additional treatment, subsequently improving survival. Summary of Background data: International guidelines disagree on the value of standardized postoperative surveillance for early detection and treatment of PDAC recurrence. Methods: A nationwide, observational cohort study was performed including all patients who underwent PDAC resection (2014-2016). Prospective baseline and perioperative data were retrieved from the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. Data on follow-up, treatment, and survival were collected retrospectively. Overall survival (OS) was evaluated using multivariable Cox regression analysis, before and after propensity-score matching, stratified for patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic recurrence. Results: Eight hundred thirty-six patients with a median follow-up of 37 months (interquartile range 30-48) were analyzed. Of those, 670 patients (80%) developed PDAC recurrence after a median follow-up of 10 months (interquartile range 5-17). Additional treatment was performed in 159/511 patients (31%) with symptomatic recurrence versus 77/159 (48%) asymptomatic patients (P < 0.001). After propensity-score matching on lymph node ratio, adjuvant therapy, disease-free survival, and recurrence site, additional treatment was independently associated with improved OS for both symptomatic patients [hazard ratio 0.53 (95% confidence interval 0.42-0.67); P < 0.001] and asymptomatic patients [hazard ratio 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.29-0.70); P < 0.001]. Conclusions: Additional treatment of PDAC recurrence was independently associated with improved OS, with asymptomatic patients having a higher probability to receive recurrence treatment. Therefore, standardized postoperative surveillance aiming to detect PDAC recurrence before the onset of symptoms has the potential to improve survival. This provides a rationale for prospective studies on standardized surveillance after PDAC resection