4,953 research outputs found

    Robotic-assistance does not enhance standard laparoscopic technique for right-sided donor nephrectomy.

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVE: To examine donor and recipient outcomes after right-sided robotic-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (RALDN) compared with standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) and to determine whether robotic-assistance enhances LDN. MATERIALS & METHODS: From December 2005 to January 2011, 25 patients underwent right-sided LDN or RALDN. An IRB-approved retrospective review was performed of both donor and recipient medical charts. Primary endpoints included both intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty right-sided LDNs and 5 RALDNs were performed during the study period. Neither estimated blood loss (76.4 mL vs. 30 mL, P = .07) nor operative time (231 min vs. 218 min, P = .61) were significantly different between either group (LDN vs. RALDN). Warm ischemia time for LDN was 2.6 min vs. 3.8 min for RALDN (P = .44). Donor postoperative serum estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) were similar (53 vs. 59.6 mL/min/1.73 m2, LDN vs. RALDN, P = .26). For the recipient patients, posttransplant eGFR were similar at 6 months (53.4 vs. 59.8 mL/min/1.73 m2, LDN vs. RALDN, P = .53). CONCLUSION: In this study, robotic-assistance did not improve outcomes associated with LDN. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm any perceived benefit of RALDN

    The Detergent Evaluation Methods and the Washing Machine(PART II)

    Get PDF
    AIC model selection table and associated coefficients for hermit warbler 2013 for all models combined. Column names for the model coefficients use the following notation: coefficient = parameter(covariate) and standard error = SEparameter(covariate). Parameter abbreviations are p = detection probability, psi = initial occupancy, col = colonization/settlement, ext = extinction/vacancy. Parameter(Int) refers to the intercept. ‘nPars’ is the number of parameters estimated in the model. Each model is ranked by its AIC score, which represents how well the model fits the data. A lower ∆AIC (delta) value is indicative of a better model. The probability that the model (of the models tested) would best explain the data is indicated by AICwt

    Forest degradation drives widespread avian habitat and population declines

    Get PDF
    In many regions of the world, forest management has reduced old forest and simplified forest structure and composition. We hypothesized that such forest degradation has resulted in long-term habitat loss for forest-associated bird species of eastern Canada (130,017 km2) which, in turn, has caused bird-population declines. Despite little change in overall forest cover, we found substantial reductions in old forest as a result of frequent clear-cutting and a broad-scale transformation to intensified forestry. Back-cast species distribution models revealed that breeding habitat loss occurred for 66% of the 54 most common species from 1985 to 2020 and was strongly associated with reduction in old age classes. Using a long-term, independent dataset, we found that habitat amount predicted population size for 94% of species, and habitat loss was associated with population declines for old-forest species. Forest degradation may therefore be a primary cause of biodiversity decline in managed forest landscapes

    第829回千葉医学会例会・第8回千葉精神科集談会

    Get PDF
    AIC model selection table and associated coefficients for Hammond's flycatcher 2012 for all models combined. Column names for the model coefficients use the following notation: coefficient = parameter(covariate) and standard error = SEparameter(covariate). Parameter abbreviations are p = detection probability, psi = initial occupancy, col = colonization/settlement, ext = extinction/vacancy. Parameter(Int) refers to the intercept. ‘nPars’ is the number of parameters estimated in the model. Each model is ranked by its AIC score, which represents how well the model fits the data. A lower ∆AIC (delta) value is indicative of a better model. The probability that the model (of the models tested) would best explain the data is indicated by AICwt

    The Role of the L1 in the L2 Classroom

    Get PDF
    The use of the L1 in L2 classrooms has historically been a controversial issue. Research over the years has greatly influenced the perspectives of the L1 and its purposes in the L2 classroom. In this paper, I will review the traditional views of L1 usage in the L2 classroom as well as discuss the major research studies which have brought new light upon the L1 and its influences on L2 acquisition. The focus of this paper will then shift to the pedagogical implications of such findings and how these findings affect my decisions as a teacher with respect to L1 usage in my classroom

    A species-centered approach for uncovering generalities in organism responses to habitat loss and fragmentation

    Get PDF
    Theoretical models predict strong influences of habitat loss and fragmentation on species distributions and demography, but empirical studies have shown relatively inconsistent support across species and systems. We argue that species' responses to landscape-scale habitat loss and fragmentation are likely to appear less idiosyncratic if it is recognized that species perceive the same landscapes in different ways. We present a new quantitative approach that uses species distribution models (SDMs) to measure landscapes (e.g. patch size, isolation, matrix amount) from the perspective of individual species. First, we briefly summarize the few efforts to date demonstrating that once differences in habitat distributions are controlled, consistencies in species' responses to landscape structure emerge. Second, we present a detailed example providing step-by-step methods for application of a species-centered approach using freely available land-cover data and recent statistical modeling approaches. Third, we discuss pitfalls in current applications of the approach and recommend avenues for future developments. We conclude that the species-centered approach offers considerable promise as a means to test whether sensitivity to habitat loss and fragmentation is mediated by phylogenetic, ecological, and life-history traits. Cross-species generalities in responses to habitat loss and fragmentation will be challenging to uncover unless landscape mosaics are defined using models that reflect differing species-specific distributions, functional connectivity, and domains of scale. The emergence of such generalities would not only enhance scientific understanding of biotic processes driving fragmentation effects, but would allow managers to estimate species sensitivities in new regions.this study was supported by US National Science Foundation grants (NSF-ARC-0941748 and DEB-1050954

    Direct Measurement of the Top Quark Mass at D0

    Full text link
    We determine the top quark mass m_t using t-tbar pairs produced in the D0 detector by \sqrt{s} = 1.8 TeV p-pbar collisions in a 125 pb^-1 exposure at the Fermilab Tevatron. We make a two constraint fit to m_t in t-tbar -> b W^+bbar W^- final states with one W boson decaying to q-qbar and the other to e-nu or mu-nu. Likelihood fits to the data yield m_t(l+jets) = 173.3 +- 5.6 (stat) +- 5.5 (syst) GeV/c^2. When this result is combined with an analysis of events in which both W bosons decay into leptons, we obtain m_t = 172.1 +- 5.2 (stat) +- 4.9 (syst) GeV/c^2. An alternate analysis, using three constraint fits to fixed top quark masses, gives m_t(l+jets) = 176.0 +- 7.9 (stat) +- 4.8 (syst) GeV/C^2, consistent with the above result. Studies of kinematic distributions of the top quark candidates are also presented.Comment: 43 pages, 53 figures, 33 tables. RevTeX. Submitted to Phys. Rev.

    Measurement of the WW Boson Mass

    Full text link
    A measurement of the mass of the WW boson is presented based on a sample of 5982 WeνW \rightarrow e \nu decays observed in ppp\overline{p} collisions at s\sqrt{s} = 1.8~TeV with the D\O\ detector during the 1992--1993 run. From a fit to the transverse mass spectrum, combined with measurements of the ZZ boson mass, the WW boson mass is measured to be MW=80.350±0.140(stat.)±0.165(syst.)±0.160(scale)GeV/c2M_W = 80.350 \pm 0.140 (stat.) \pm 0.165 (syst.) \pm 0.160 (scale) GeV/c^2.Comment: 12 pages, LaTex, style Revtex, including 3 postscript figures (submitted to PRL
    corecore