Heavy quark collisional energy loss in the quark-gluon plasma including finite relaxation time

In this paper, we calculate the soft-collisional energy loss of heavy quarks traversing the viscous quark-gluon plasma including the effects of a finite relaxation time $\tau_\pi$ on the energy loss. We find that the collisional energy loss depends appreciably on $\tau_\pi$ . In particular, for typical values of the viscosity-to-entropy ratio, we show that the energy loss obtained using $\tau_\pi$ = 0 can be $\sim$ 10$\%$ larger than the one obtained using $\tau_\pi$ = 0. Moreover, we find that the energy loss obtained using the kinetic theory expression for $\tau_\pi$ is much larger that the one obtained with the $\tau_\pi$ derived from the Anti de Sitter/Conformal Field Theory correspondence. Our results may be relevant in the modeling of heavy quark evolution through the quark-gluon plasma.Comment: v2: 5 pages, 4 figures, added references. Accepted for publication in Phys. Rev.

Performance of an Ultra-Sensitive Assay Targeting the Circulating Anodic Antigen (CAA) for Detection of Schistosoma mansoni Infection in a Low Endemic Area in Brazil

Techniques with high sensitivity and specificity are required for an accurate diagnosis in low-transmission settings, where the conventional parasitological methods are insensitive. We determined the accuracy of an up-converting phosphor-lateral flow circulating anodic antigen (UCP-LF CAA) assay in urine and serum for Schistosoma mansoni diagnosis in low-prevalence settings in Ceará, Brazil, before and after praziquantel treatment. Clinical samples of a total of 258 individuals were investigated by UCP-LF CAA, point-of-care—circulating cathodic antigen (POC-CCA), soluble worm antigen preparation (SWAP)-ELISA and Kato-Katz (KK); a selection of 128 stools by real-time PCR technique. Three and 6-weeks after treatment, samples were collected and evaluated by detection Schistosoma circulating antigens (CAA and CCA). The UCP-LF CAA assays detected 80 positives (31%) with urine and 82 positives (31.8%) with serum. The urine POC-CCA and serum SWAP-ELISA assays detected 30 (11.6%) and 107 (40.7%) positives, respectively. The Kato-Katz technique revealed only 4 positive stool samples (1.6%). Among the 128 individuals with complete data records, 19 cases were identified by PCR (14.8%); Sensitivities and specificities of the UCP-LF CAA assays, determined versus a combined reference standard based on CCA/KK/PCR positivity, ranged from 60–68% to 68–77%, respectively. In addition only for comparative purposes, sensitivities of the different assays were determined vs. a comparative reference based on CAA/KK/PCR positivity, showing the highest sensitivity for the urine CAA assay (80%), followed by the serum CAA (70.9%), SWAP-ELISA (43.6%), PCR (34.5%), POC-CCA (29.1%), whilst triplicate Kato-Katz thick smears had a very low sensitivity (3.6%). CAA concentrations were higher in serum than in urine and were significantly correlated. There was a significant decrease in urine and serum CAA levels 3 and 6-weeks after treatment. The UCP-LF CAA assays revealed 33 and 28 S. mansoni-infected patients at the 3- and 6-week post-treatment follow-up, respectively. The UCP-LF CAA assays show high sensitivity for the diagnosis of S. mansoni in low-endemicity settings. It detects a considerably higher number of infections than microscopy, POC-CCA or PCR. Also it shows to be very useful for evaluating cure rates after treatment. Hence, the UCP-LF CAA assay is a robust and promising diagnostic approach in low-transmission settings

Calibration of the LIGO gravitational wave detectors in the fifth science run

The Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) is a network of three detectors built to detect local perturbations in the space–time metric from astrophysical sources. These detectors, two in Hanford, WA and one in Livingston, LA, are power-recycled Fabry-Perot Michelson interferometers. In their fifth science run (S5), between November 2005 and October 2007, these detectors accumulated one year of triple coincident data while operating at their designed sensitivity. In this paper, we describe the calibration of the instruments in the S5 data set, including measurement techniques and uncertainty estimation.United States. National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationCarnegie TrustLeverhulme TrustDavid & Lucile Packard FoundationResearch CorporationAlfred P. Sloan Foundatio

Immunoglobulin, glucocorticoid, or combination therapy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: a propensity-weighted cohort study

Background: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a hyperinflammatory condition associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, has emerged as a serious illness in children worldwide. Immunoglobulin or glucocorticoids, or both, are currently recommended treatments. Methods: The Best Available Treatment Study evaluated immunomodulatory treatments for MIS-C in an international observational cohort. Analysis of the first 614 patients was previously reported. In this propensity-weighted cohort study, clinical and outcome data from children with suspected or proven MIS-C were collected onto a web-based Research Electronic Data Capture database. After excluding neonates and incomplete or duplicate records, inverse probability weighting was used to compare primary treatments with intravenous immunoglobulin, intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone, using intravenous immunoglobulin as the reference treatment. Primary outcomes were a composite of inotropic or ventilator support from the second day after treatment initiation, or death, and time to improvement on an ordinal clinical severity scale. Secondary outcomes included treatment escalation, clinical deterioration, fever, and coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN69546370. Findings: We enrolled 2101 children (aged 0 months to 19 years) with clinically diagnosed MIS-C from 39 countries between June 14, 2020, and April 25, 2022, and, following exclusions, 2009 patients were included for analysis (median age 8·0 years [IQR 4·2–11·4], 1191 [59·3%] male and 818 [40·7%] female, and 825 [41·1%] White). 680 (33·8%) patients received primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin, 698 (34·7%) with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, 487 (24·2%) with glucocorticoids alone; 59 (2·9%) patients received other combinations, including biologicals, and 85 (4·2%) patients received no immunomodulators. There were no significant differences between treatments for primary outcomes for the 1586 patients with complete baseline and outcome data that were considered for primary analysis. Adjusted odds ratios for ventilation, inotropic support, or death were 1·09 (95% CI 0·75–1·58; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids and 0·93 (0·58–1·47; corrected p value=1·00) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Adjusted average hazard ratios for time to improvement were 1·04 (95% CI 0·91–1·20; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, and 0·84 (0·70–1·00; corrected p value=0·22) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Treatment escalation was less frequent for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids (OR 0·15 [95% CI 0·11–0·20]; p<0·0001) and glucocorticoids alone (0·68 [0·50–0·93]; p=0·014) versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Persistent fever (from day 2 onward) was less common with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids compared with either intravenous immunoglobulin alone (OR 0·50 [95% CI 0·38–0·67]; p<0·0001) or glucocorticoids alone (0·63 [0·45–0·88]; p=0·0058). Coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Interpretation: Recovery rates, including occurrence and resolution of coronary artery aneurysms, were similar for primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin when compared to glucocorticoids or intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids. Initial treatment with glucocorticoids appears to be a safe alternative to immunoglobulin or combined therapy, and might be advantageous in view of the cost and limited availability of intravenous immunoglobulin in many countries. Funding: Imperial College London, the European Union's Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Foundation, UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, and National Institutes of Health

Red Nacional de reconocedores de suelos.

Los relevamientos sistemáticos de suelos en Argentina comenzaron en la década de 1960, en el marco del Plan Mapa de Suelos. Dicho plan, desarrollado y liderado por el INTA, dio impulso a la formación de especialistas y a la producción de cartografía de suelos a diferentes escalas. Sin embargo, a partir del año 2000 las actividades se redujeron notablemente y gran parte de los equipos provinciales formados hasta ese momento se desarticularon. Desde entonces los relevamientos continuaron de manera aislada sólo en aquellas provincias donde se mantuvieron los grupos de trabajo. Este hecho condujo a que actualmente diferentes regiones del país no cuenten con información acerca de las propiedades y distribución de suelos a una escala adecuada para la toma de decisiones. En este contexto, en el 2018 se crea la Red Nacional de Reconocedores de Suelos (RNRS) que organiza las capacidades técnicas y operativas a nivel nacional para dar pronta respuesta a la creciente demanda de cartografía. Se trata de un equipo interinstitucional e interdisciplinario de especialistas distribuidos por todo el país, que realiza tareas de relevamiento, produce y difunde cartografía básica y utilitaria de suelos, ofrece capacitación y genera espacios de discusión y actualización metodológica. A la fecha, la RNRS ha relevado aproximadamente 760.000 ha en el sur de Córdoba, estimando completar durante el presente año el relevamiento del departamento Río Cuarto. Esta estrategia organizacional permitirá avanzar en el mapeo semidetallado de suelos en nuestro país, estableciendo vinculaciones sinérgicas entre profesionales de diferentes instituciones a fin de fortalecer y potenciar los equipos de trabajo en cada región. El motivo de esta contribución es presentar la RNRS, sus objetivos, avances a la fecha y desafíos a futuro, haciendo una breve revisión del estado actual de los relevamientos a escala semidetallada en nuestro país.Fil: Moretti, Lucas M. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Cerro Azul; ArgentinaFil: Rodriguez, Darío M. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Suelos; ArgentinaFil: Schulz, Guillermo A. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Suelos; ArgentinaFil: Kurtz, Ditmar Bernardo. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Corrientes; ArgentinaFil: Altamirano D. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Manfredi; ArgentinaFil: Amin, S. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Angelini, Marcos Esteban. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Suelos; Argentina. Wageningen University. Soil Geography and Landscape group; Holanda. International Soil Reference and Information Centre. World Soil Information; HolandaFil: Babelis, German Claudio. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria San Juan; ArgentinaFil: Becerra, Alejandra Gabriela. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; ArgentinaFil: Bedendo, Dante Julian. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Paraná; ArgentinaFil: Boldrini, C. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Marcos Juárez. Agencia de Extensión Rural Río Cuarto; AgentinaFil: Bongiovanni, C. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Bozzer, S. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Cabrera, A. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Canale, A. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Marcos Juárez. Agencia de Extensión Rural Río Cuarto; AgentinaFil: Chilano, Y. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Cholaky, Carmen. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto. Facultad de Agronomía y Veterinaria; ArgentinaFil: Cisneros; José Manuel. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto. Cátedra de Uso y Manejo de Suelos; ArgentinaFil: Colazo, Juan Cruz. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria San Luis; ArgentinaFil: Corigliano, J. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Degioanni, Américo José. Universidad Nacional Río Cuarto. Facultad de Agronomía y Veterinaria. Departamento de Ecología Agraria; ArgentinaFil: de la Fuente, Juan Carlos Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Suelos; ArgentinaFil: Escobar, Dardo. Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca; ArgentinaFil: Faule, L. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Manfredi. Córdoba. ArgentinaFil: Galarza, Carlos Martin. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Marcos Juárez; ArgentinaFil: González, J. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Holzmann, R. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Alto Valle; ArgentinaFil: Irigoin, Julieta. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Suelos; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Luján. Departamento Tecnología; ArgentinaFil: Lanfranco, M. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Manfredi; ArgentinaFil: León Giacosa, C. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Rafaela; ArgentinaFil: Matteio, J.P. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Suelos; ArgentinaFil: Márquez, C. Gobierno de Córdoba. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería; ArgentinaFil: Marzari, R. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Mattalia, M.L. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Morales Poclava, P.C. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Salta; ArgentinaFil: Muñoz, S. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Marcos Juárez; ArgentinaFil: Paladino, Ileana Ruth. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Suelos; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Lomas de Zamora. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; ArgentinaFil: Parra, B. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Pérez, M. Gobierno de Córdoba. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería; ArgentinaFil: Pezzola, A. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Hilario Ascasubi; ArgentinaFil: Perucca, S. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Marcos Juárez. Agencia de Extensión Rural Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Porcel de Peralta, R. Gobierno de Córdoba. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería; ArgentinaFil: Renaudeau, S. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Corrientes; ArgentinaFil: Salustio, M. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Marcos Juárez. Agencia de Extensión Rural Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Sapino, V. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Rafaela; ArgentinaFil: Tenti Vuegen, L.M. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Suelos. ArgentinaFil: Tosolini, R. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Rafaela; ArgentinaFil: Vicondo, M.E. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Manfredi; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. ArgentinaFil: Vizgarra, L.A. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Quimili; ArgentinaFil: Ybarra, D.D. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Corrientes; ArgentinaFil: Winschel, C. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Hilario Ascasubi; ArgentinaFil: Zamora, E. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Corrientes; Argentin

Immunoglobulin, glucocorticoid, or combination therapy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: a propensity-weighted cohort study

Background Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a hyperinflammatory condition associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, has emerged as a serious illness in children worldwide. Immunoglobulin or glucocorticoids, or both, are currently recommended treatments. Methods The Best Available Treatment Study evaluated immunomodulatory treatments for MIS-C in an international observational cohort. Analysis of the first 614 patients was previously reported. In this propensity-weighted cohort study, clinical and outcome data from children with suspected or proven MIS-C were collected onto a web-based Research Electronic Data Capture database. After excluding neonates and incomplete or duplicate records, inverse probability weighting was used to compare primary treatments with intravenous immunoglobulin, intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone, using intravenous immunoglobulin as the reference treatment. Primary outcomes were a composite of inotropic or ventilator support from the second day after treatment initiation, or death, and time to improvement on an ordinal clinical severity scale. Secondary outcomes included treatment escalation, clinical deterioration, fever, and coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN69546370. Findings We enrolled 2101 children (aged 0 months to 19 years) with clinically diagnosed MIS-C from 39 countries between June 14, 2020, and April 25, 2022, and, following exclusions, 2009 patients were included for analysis (median age 8·0 years [IQR 4·2–11·4], 1191 [59·3%] male and 818 [40·7%] female, and 825 [41·1%] White). 680 (33·8%) patients received primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin, 698 (34·7%) with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, 487 (24·2%) with glucocorticoids alone; 59 (2·9%) patients received other combinations, including biologicals, and 85 (4·2%) patients received no immunomodulators. There were no significant differences between treatments for primary outcomes for the 1586 patients with complete baseline and outcome data that were considered for primary analysis. Adjusted odds ratios for ventilation, inotropic support, or death were 1·09 (95% CI 0·75–1·58; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids and 0·93 (0·58–1·47; corrected p value=1·00) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Adjusted average hazard ratios for time to improvement were 1·04 (95% CI 0·91–1·20; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, and 0·84 (0·70–1·00; corrected p value=0·22) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Treatment escalation was less frequent for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids (OR 0·15 [95% CI 0·11–0·20]; p<0·0001) and glucocorticoids alone (0·68 [0·50–0·93]; p=0·014) versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Persistent fever (from day 2 onward) was less common with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids compared with either intravenous immunoglobulin alone (OR 0·50 [95% CI 0·38–0·67]; p<0·0001) or glucocorticoids alone (0·63 [0·45–0·88]; p=0·0058). Coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Interpretation Recovery rates, including occurrence and resolution of coronary artery aneurysms, were similar for primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin when compared to glucocorticoids or intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids. Initial treatment with glucocorticoids appears to be a safe alternative to immunoglobulin or combined therapy, and might be advantageous in view of the cost and limited availability of intravenous immunoglobulin in many countries. Funding Imperial College London, the European Union's Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Foundation, UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, and National Institutes of Health

VIII Encuentro de Docentes e Investigadores en Historia del Diseño, la Arquitectura y la Ciudad

Acta de congresoLa conmemoración de los cien años de la Reforma Universitaria de 1918 se presentó como una ocasión propicia para debatir el rol de la historia, la teoría y la crítica en la formación y en la práctica profesional de diseñadores, arquitectos y urbanistas. En ese marco el VIII Encuentro de Docentes e Investigadores en Historia del Diseño, la Arquitectura y la Ciudad constituyó un espacio de intercambio y reflexión cuya realización ha sido posible gracias a la colaboración entre Facultades de Arquitectura, Urbanismo y Diseño de la Universidad Nacional y la Facultad de Arquitectura de la Universidad Católica de Córdoba, contando además con la activa participación de mayoría de las Facultades, Centros e Institutos de Historia de la Arquitectura del país y la región. Orientado en su convocatoria tanto a docentes como a estudiantes de Arquitectura y Diseño Industrial de todos los niveles de la FAUD-UNC promovió el debate de ideas a partir de experiencias concretas en instancias tales como mesas temáticas de carácter interdisciplinario, que adoptaron la modalidad de presentación de ponencias, entre otras actividades. En el ámbito de VIII Encuentro, desarrollado en la sede Ciudad Universitaria de Córdoba, se desplegaron numerosas posiciones sobre la enseñanza, la investigación y la formación en historia, teoría y crítica del diseño, la arquitectura y la ciudad; sumándose el aporte realizado a través de sus respectivas conferencias de Ana Clarisa Agüero, Bibiana Cicutti, Fernando Aliata y Alberto Petrina. El conjunto de ponencias que se publican en este Repositorio de la UNC son el resultado de dos intensas jornadas de exposiciones, cuyos contenidos han posibilitado actualizar viejos dilemas y promover nuevos debates. El evento recibió el apoyo de las autoridades de la FAUD-UNC, en especial de la Secretaría de Investigación y de la Biblioteca de nuestra casa, como así también de la Facultad de Arquitectura de la UCC; va para todos ellos un especial agradecimiento