Views of the Chiral Magnetic Effect

My personal views of the Chiral Magnetic Effect are presented, which starts with a story about how we came up with the electric-current formula and continues to unsettled subtleties in the formula. There are desirable features in the formula of the Chiral Magnetic Effect but some considerations would lead us to even more questions than elucidations. The interpretation of the produced current is indeed very non-trivial and it involves a lot of confusions that have not been resolved.Comment: 19 pages, no figure; typos corrected, references significantly updated, to appear in Lect. Notes Phys. "Strongly interacting matter in magnetic fields" (Springer), edited by D. Kharzeev, K. Landsteiner, A. Schmitt, H.-U. Ye

The dynamics of quark-gluon plasma and AdS/CFT

In these pedagogical lectures, we present the techniques of the AdS/CFT correspondence which can be applied to the study of real time dynamics of a strongly coupled plasma system. These methods are based on solving gravitational Einstein's equations on the string/gravity side of the AdS/CFT correspondence. We illustrate these techniques with applications to the boost-invariant expansion of a plasma system. We emphasize the common underlying AdS/CFT description both in the large proper time regime where hydrodynamic dynamics dominates, and in the small proper time regime where the dynamics is far from equilibrium. These AdS/CFT methods provide a fascinating arena interrelating General Relativity phenomenae with strongly coupled gauge theory physics.Comment: 35 pages, 3 figures. Lectures at the 5th Aegean summer school, `From gravity to thermal gauge theories: the AdS/CFT correspondence'. To appear in the proceedings in `Lecture Notes in Physics

Accelerated surgery versus standard care in hip fracture (HIP ATTACK) : an international, randomised, controlled trial

Background: Observational studies have suggested that accelerated surgery is associated with improved outcomes in patients with a hip fracture. The HIP ATTACK trial assessed whether accelerated surgery could reduce mortality and major complications. Methods: HIP ATTACK was an international, randomised, controlled trial done at 69 hospitals in 17 countries. Patients with a hip fracture that required surgery and were aged 45 years or older were eligible. Research personnel randomly assigned patients (1:1) through a central computerised randomisation system using randomly varying block sizes to either accelerated surgery (goal of surgery within 6 h of diagnosis) or standard care. The coprimary outcomes were mortality and a composite of major complications (ie, mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, life-threatening bleeding, and major bleeding) at 90 days after randomisation. Patients, health-care providers, and study staff were aware of treatment assignment, but outcome adjudicators were masked to treatment allocation. Patients were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02027896). Findings: Between March 14, 2014, and May 24, 2019, 27 701 patients were screened, of whom 7780 were eligible. 2970 of these were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive accelerated surgery (n=1487) or standard care (n=1483). The median time from hip fracture diagnosis to surgery was 6 h (IQR 4\u20139) in the accelerated-surgery group and 24 h (10\u201342) in the standard-care group (p<0\ub70001). 140 (9%) patients assigned to accelerated surgery and 154 (10%) assigned to standard care died, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0\ub791 (95% CI 0\ub772 to 1\ub714) and absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 1% ( 121 to 3; p=0\ub740). Major complications occurred in 321 (22%) patients assigned to accelerated surgery and 331 (22%) assigned to standard care, with an HR of 0\ub797 (0\ub783 to 1\ub713) and an ARR of 1% ( 122 to 4; p=0\ub771). Interpretation: Among patients with a hip fracture, accelerated surgery did not significantly lower the risk of mortality or a composite of major complications compared with standard care. Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research