The VISTA Science Archive

We describe the VISTA Science Archive (VSA) and its first public release of data from five of the six VISTA Public Surveys. The VSA exists to support the VISTA Surveys through their lifecycle: the VISTA Public Survey consortia can use it during their quality control assessment of survey data products before submission to the ESO Science Archive Facility (ESO SAF); it supports their exploitation of survey data prior to its publication through the ESO SAF; and, subsequently, it provides the wider community with survey science exploitation tools that complement the data product repository functionality of the ESO SAF. This paper has been written in conjunction with the first public release of public survey data through the VSA and is designed to help its users understand the data products available and how the functionality of the VSA supports their varied science goals. We describe the design of the database and outline the database-driven curation processes that take data from nightly pipeline-processed and calibrated FITS files to create science-ready survey datasets. Much of this design, and the codebase implementing it, derives from our earlier WFCAM Science Archive (WSA), so this paper concentrates on the VISTA-specific aspects and on improvements made to the system in the light of experience gained in operating the WSA.Comment: 22 pages, 16 figures. Minor edits to fonts and typos after sub-editting. Published in A&

Reimagining the language of engagement in a post-stakeholder world

Language matters in shaping perceptions and guiding behaviour. The term stakeholder is widely used, yet little attention is paid to the possibility that its use may inadvertently perpetuate colonial narratives and reinforce systemic inequities. In this article, we critically examine the limitations of the stakeholder concept and its ambiguity, normativity, and exclusionary implications. We emphasise the importance of using language that gives a voice to marginalised groups, promotes inclusion and equity, and fosters meaningful and reflexive participation in decision-making processes. In critiquing the use of the term and calling for alternative practices, we aim to contribute to the decolonisation of research norms and the creation of more inclusive and equitable societies. Therefore, rather than advocating a single alternative term, we suggest a focus on the people, places, and species affected by decisions, interventions, projects, and issues

Reimagining the language of engagement in a post-stakeholder world

Language matters in shaping perceptions and guiding behaviour. The term stakeholder is widely used, yet little attention is paid to the possibility that its use may inadvertently perpetuate colonial narratives and reinforce systemic inequities. In this article, we critically examine the limitations of the stakeholder concept and its ambiguity, normativity, and exclusionary implications. We emphasise the importance of using language that gives a voice to marginalised groups, promotes inclusion and equity, and fosters meaningful and reflexive participation in decision-making processes. In critiquing the use of the term and calling for alternative practices, we aim to contribute to the decolonisation of research norms and the creation of more inclusive and equitable societies. Therefore, rather than advocating a single alternative term, we suggest a focus on the people, places, and species affected by decisions, interventions, projects, and issues.</p

Evaluation of outcomes among patients with traumatic intracranial hypertension treated with decompressive craniectomy vs standard medical care at 24 month

Importance Trials often assess primary outcomes of traumatic brain injury at 6 months. Longer-term data are needed to assess outcomes for patients receiving surgical vs medical treatment for traumatic intracranial hypertension. Objective To evaluate 24-month outcomes for patients with traumatic intracranial hypertension treated with decompressive craniectomy or standard medical care. Design, Setting, and Participants Prespecified secondary analysis of the Randomized Evaluation of Surgery With Craniectomy for Uncontrollable Elevation of Intracranial Pressure (RESCUEicp) randomized clinical trial data was performed for patients with traumatic intracranial hypertension (&gt;25 mm Hg) from 52 centers in 20 countries. Enrollment occurred between January 2004 and March 2014. Data were analyzed between 2018 and 2021. Eligibility criteria were age 10 to 65 years, traumatic brain injury (confirmed via computed tomography), intracranial pressure monitoring, and sustained and refractory elevated intracranial pressure for 1 to 12 hours despite pressure-controlling measures. Exclusion criteria were bilateral fixed and dilated pupils, bleeding diathesis, or unsurvivable injury. Interventions Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive a decompressive craniectomy with standard care (surgical group) or to ongoing medical treatment with the option to add barbiturate infusion (medical group). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was measured with the 8-point Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (1 indicates death and 8 denotes upper good recovery), and the 6- to 24-month outcome trajectory was examined. Results This study enrolled 408 patients: 206 in the surgical group and 202 in the medical group. The mean (SD) age was 32.3 (13.2) and 34.8 (13.7) years, respectively, and the study population was predominantly male (165 [81.7%] and 156 [80.0%], respectively). At 24 months, patients in the surgical group had reduced mortality (61 [33.5%] vs 94 [54.0%]; absolute difference, −20.5 [95% CI, −30.8 to −10.2]) and higher rates of vegetative state (absolute difference, 4.3 [95% CI, 0.0 to 8.6]), lower or upper moderate disability (4.7 [−0.9 to 10.3] vs 2.8 [−4.2 to 9.8]), and lower or upper severe disability (2.2 [−5.4 to 9.8] vs 6.5 [1.8 to 11.2]; χ27 = 24.20, P = .001). For every 100 individuals treated surgically, 21 additional patients survived at 24 months; 4 were in a vegetative state, 2 had lower and 7 had upper severe disability, and 5 had lower and 3 had upper moderate disability, respectively. Rates of lower and upper good recovery were similar for the surgical and medical groups (20 [11.0%] vs 19 [10.9%]), and significant differences in net improvement (≥1 grade) were observed between 6 and 24 months (55 [30.0%] vs 25 [14.0%]; χ22 = 13.27, P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance At 24 months, patients with surgically treated posttraumatic refractory intracranial hypertension had a sustained reduction in mortality and higher rates of vegetative state, severe disability, and moderate disability. Patients in the surgical group were more likely to improve over time vs patients in the medical group