Effects of Time of Day and Sleep Deprivation on Motorcycle-Driving Performance

The aim of this study was to investigate whether motorcycle handling capabilities – measured by means of the efficiency of emergency manoeuvres – were dependent on prior sleep deprivation and time of day. Twelve male participants voluntarily took part in four test sessions, starting at 6 a.m., 10 a.m., 2 p.m., and 6 p.m., following a night either with or without sleep. Each test session comprised temperature and sleepiness measurements, before three different types of motorcycling tests were initiated: (1) stability in straight ahead riding at low speed (in “slow motion” mode and in “brakes and clutch” mode), (2) emergency braking and (3) crash avoidance tasks performed at 20 kph and 40 kph. The results indicate that motorcycle control at low speed depends on time of day, with an improvement in performance throughout the day. Emergency braking performance is affected at both speeds by time of day, with poorer performance (longer total stopping distance, reaction time and braking distance) in the morning, and also by sleep deprivation, from measurements obtained at 40 kph (incorrect initial speed). Except for a tendency observed after the sleepless night to deviate from the initial speed, it seems that crash avoidance capabilities are quite unaffected by the two disturbance factors. Consequently, some motorcycle handling capabilities (stability at low speed and emergency braking) change in the same way as the diurnal fluctuation observed in body temperature and sleepiness, whereas for others (crash avoidance) the participants were able to maintain their initial performance level despite the high levels of sleepiness recorded after a sleepless night. Motorcycle riders have to be aware that their handling capabilities are limited in the early morning and/or after sleep deprivation. Both these situations can increase the risk of falls and of being involved in a road accident

Importance of patient bed pathways and length of stay differences in predicting COVID-19 hospital bed occupancy in England.

Background: Predicting bed occupancy for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requires understanding of length of stay (LoS) in particular bed types. LoS can vary depending on the patient’s “bed pathway” - the sequence of transfers of individual patients between bed types during a hospital stay. In this study, we characterise these pathways, and their impact on predicted hospital bed occupancy. Methods: We obtained data from University College Hospital (UCH) and the ISARIC4C COVID-19 Clinical Information Network (CO-CIN) on hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who required care in general ward or critical care (CC) beds to determine possible bed pathways and LoS. We developed a discrete-time model to examine the implications of using either bed pathways or only average LoS by bed type to forecast bed occupancy. We compared model-predicted bed occupancy to publicly available bed occupancy data on COVID-19 in England between March and August 2020. Results: In both the UCH and CO-CIN datasets, 82% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 only received care in general ward beds. We identified four other bed pathways, present in both datasets: “Ward, CC, Ward”, “Ward, CC”, “CC” and “CC, Ward”. Mean LoS varied by bed type, pathway, and dataset, between 1.78 and 13.53 days. For UCH, we found that using bed pathways improved the accuracy of bed occupancy predictions, while only using an average LoS for each bed type underestimated true bed occupancy. However, using the CO-CIN LoS dataset we were not able to replicate past data on bed occupancy in England, suggesting regional LoS heterogeneities. Conclusions: We identified five bed pathways, with substantial variation in LoS by bed type, pathway, and geography. This might be caused by local differences in patient characteristics, clinical care strategies, or resource availability, and suggests that national LoS averages may not be appropriate for local forecasts of bed occupancy for COVID-19. Trial registration: The ISARIC WHO CCP-UK study ISRCTN66726260 was retrospectively registered on 21/04/2020 and designated an Urgent Public Health Research Study by NIHR.</p

Global age-sex-specific mortality, life expectancy, and population estimates in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1950–2021, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

Background: Estimates of demographic metrics are crucial to assess levels and trends of population health outcomes. The profound impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on populations worldwide has underscored the need for timely estimates to understand this unprecedented event within the context of long-term population health trends. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 provides new demographic estimates for 204 countries and territories and 811 additional subnational locations from 1950 to 2021, with a particular emphasis on changes in mortality and life expectancy that occurred during the 2020–21 COVID-19 pandemic period. Methods: 22 223 data sources from vital registration, sample registration, surveys, censuses, and other sources were used to estimate mortality, with a subset of these sources used exclusively to estimate excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 2026 data sources were used for population estimation. Additional sources were used to estimate migration; the effects of the HIV epidemic; and demographic discontinuities due to conflicts, famines, natural disasters, and pandemics, which are used as inputs for estimating mortality and population. Spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression (ST-GPR) was used to generate under-5 mortality rates, which synthesised 30 763 location-years of vital registration and sample registration data, 1365 surveys and censuses, and 80 other sources. ST-GPR was also used to estimate adult mortality (between ages 15 and 59 years) based on information from 31 642 location-years of vital registration and sample registration data, 355 surveys and censuses, and 24 other sources. Estimates of child and adult mortality rates were then used to generate life tables with a relational model life table system. For countries with large HIV epidemics, life tables were adjusted using independent estimates of HIV-specific mortality generated via an epidemiological analysis of HIV prevalence surveys, antenatal clinic serosurveillance, and other data sources. Excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021 was determined by subtracting observed all-cause mortality (adjusted for late registration and mortality anomalies) from the mortality expected in the absence of the pandemic. Expected mortality was calculated based on historical trends using an ensemble of models. In location-years where all-cause mortality data were unavailable, we estimated excess mortality rates using a regression model with covariates pertaining to the pandemic. Population size was computed using a Bayesian hierarchical cohort component model. Life expectancy was calculated using age-specific mortality rates and standard demographic methods. Uncertainty intervals (UIs) were calculated for every metric using the 25th and 975th ordered values from a 1000-draw posterior distribution. Findings: Global all-cause mortality followed two distinct patterns over the study period: age-standardised mortality rates declined between 1950 and 2019 (a 62·8% [95% UI 60·5–65·1] decline), and increased during the COVID-19 pandemic period (2020–21; 5·1% [0·9–9·6] increase). In contrast with the overall reverse in mortality trends during the pandemic period, child mortality continued to decline, with 4·66 million (3·98–5·50) global deaths in children younger than 5 years in 2021 compared with 5·21 million (4·50–6·01) in 2019. An estimated 131 million (126–137) people died globally from all causes in 2020 and 2021 combined, of which 15·9 million (14·7–17·2) were due to the COVID-19 pandemic (measured by excess mortality, which includes deaths directly due to SARS-CoV-2 infection and those indirectly due to other social, economic, or behavioural changes associated with the pandemic). Excess mortality rates exceeded 150 deaths per 100 000 population during at least one year of the pandemic in 80 countries and territories, whereas 20 nations had a negative excess mortality rate in 2020 or 2021, indicating that all-cause mortality in these countries was lower during the pandemic than expected based on historical trends. Between 1950 and 2021, global life expectancy at birth increased by 22·7 years (20·8–24·8), from 49·0 years (46·7–51·3) to 71·7 years (70·9–72·5). Global life expectancy at birth declined by 1·6 years (1·0–2·2) between 2019 and 2021, reversing historical trends. An increase in life expectancy was only observed in 32 (15·7%) of 204 countries and territories between 2019 and 2021. The global population reached 7·89 billion (7·67–8·13) people in 2021, by which time 56 of 204 countries and territories had peaked and subsequently populations have declined. The largest proportion of population growth between 2020 and 2021 was in sub-Saharan Africa (39·5% [28·4–52·7]) and south Asia (26·3% [9·0–44·7]). From 2000 to 2021, the ratio of the population aged 65 years and older to the population aged younger than 15 years increased in 188 (92·2%) of 204 nations. Interpretation: Global adult mortality rates markedly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021, reversing past decreasing trends, while child mortality rates continued to decline, albeit more slowly than in earlier years. Although COVID-19 had a substantial impact on many demographic indicators during the first 2 years of the pandemic, overall global health progress over the 72 years evaluated has been profound, with considerable improvements in mortality and life expectancy. Additionally, we observed a deceleration of global population growth since 2017, despite steady or increasing growth in lower-income countries, combined with a continued global shift of population age structures towards older ages. These demographic changes will likely present future challenges to health systems, economies, and societies. The comprehensive demographic estimates reported here will enable researchers, policy makers, health practitioners, and other key stakeholders to better understand and address the profound changes that have occurred in the global health landscape following the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic, and longer-term trends beyond the pandemic

Impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular testing in the United States versus the rest of the world

Objectives: This study sought to quantify and compare the decline in volumes of cardiovascular procedures between the United States and non-US institutions during the early phase of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the care of many non-COVID-19 illnesses. Reductions in diagnostic cardiovascular testing around the world have led to concerns over the implications of reduced testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. Methods: Data were submitted to the INCAPS-COVID (International Atomic Energy Agency Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocols Study of COVID-19), a multinational registry comprising 909 institutions in 108 countries (including 155 facilities in 40 U.S. states), assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of diagnostic cardiovascular procedures. Data were obtained for April 2020 and compared with volumes of baseline procedures from March 2019. We compared laboratory characteristics, practices, and procedure volumes between U.S. and non-U.S. facilities and between U.S. geographic regions and identified factors associated with volume reduction in the United States. Results: Reductions in the volumes of procedures in the United States were similar to those in non-U.S. facilities (68% vs. 63%, respectively; p = 0.237), although U.S. facilities reported greater reductions in invasive coronary angiography (69% vs. 53%, respectively; p < 0.001). Significantly more U.S. facilities reported increased use of telehealth and patient screening measures than non-U.S. facilities, such as temperature checks, symptom screenings, and COVID-19 testing. Reductions in volumes of procedures differed between U.S. regions, with larger declines observed in the Northeast (76%) and Midwest (74%) than in the South (62%) and West (44%). Prevalence of COVID-19, staff redeployments, outpatient centers, and urban centers were associated with greater reductions in volume in U.S. facilities in a multivariable analysis. Conclusions: We observed marked reductions in U.S. cardiovascular testing in the early phase of the pandemic and significant variability between U.S. regions. The association between reductions of volumes and COVID-19 prevalence in the United States highlighted the need for proactive efforts to maintain access to cardiovascular testing in areas most affected by outbreaks of COVID-19 infection

Long-Run Stock Returns Following Briloff\u27s Analyses

Abraham Briloff is well known for more than four decades of insightful analysis and criticism of the accounting practices of various companies. His critiques, in the form of articles published in Barron\u27s, consist of detailed financial analyses of the questionable accounting practices of the companies he examines. Previous research has shown that the companies criticized by Briloff in Barron\u27s experience significant negative abnormal returns around the article\u27s publication date. To understand the valuation effect associated with his financial analyses, this article examines long-run abnormal returns following the publication date. In addition to the initial negative reaction on publication of the articles, the companies in the sample experienced further significant risk-adjusted returns for one and two years of, respectively, -15.51 percent and -22.88 percent. The results show that a decline in future operating performance appears to be an important reason for the poor stock market performance of the companies. Thus, Briloff could apparently foresee the coming decline in operating performance better than the market could. These results underscore the importance of understanding a company\u27s accounting and of the role of careful financial statement analysis

Long-Run Stock Returns Following Briloff\u27s Analyses

Abraham Briloff is well known for more than four decades of insightful analysis and criticism of the accounting practices of various companies. His critiques, in the form of articles published in Barron\u27s, consist of detailed financial analyses of the questionable accounting practices of the companies he examines. Previous research has shown that the companies criticized by Briloff in Barron\u27s experience significant negative abnormal returns around the article\u27s publication date. To understand the valuation effect associated with his financial analyses, this article examines long-run abnormal returns following the publication date. In addition to the initial negative reaction on publication of the articles, the companies in the sample experienced further significant risk-adjusted returns for one and two years of, respectively, -15.51 percent and -22.88 percent. The results show that a decline in future operating performance appears to be an important reason for the poor stock market performance of the companies. Thus, Briloff could apparently foresee the coming decline in operating performance better than the market could. These results underscore the importance of understanding a company\u27s accounting and of the role of careful financial statement analysis

An Analysis of the Recommendations of the Superstar Money Managers at Barron\u27s Annual Roundtable

We examine the performance of common stock recommendations made by prominent money managers at Barron\u27s Annual Roundtable from 1968 to 1991. To avoid survivorship bias, we examine the performance of recommendations by all the participants. The buy recommendations earn significant abnormal returns of 1.91% from the recommendation day to the publication day, a period of about 14 days. However, the abnormal returns are essentially zero for one to three year post-publication day holding periods. Thus, an individual investing according to the Roundtable recommendations published in Barron\u27s would not benefit from the advice

Long-Run Common Stock Returns Following Stock Splits and Stock Dividends

We examine one-to three-year performance of common stocks following stock split and stock dividend announcements made during the period 1976 to 1991. The average one-and three-year buy-and-hold abnormal returns after the announcement month are 8.19% and 7.55% respectively. Also, smaller firms exhibit larger announcement period as well as larger one-to three-year abnormal returns. The results cannot be explained away by general cash-dividend increase announcements or earnings announcements. Overall, the results are consistent with the hypothesis that the market underreacts to the stock split and the stock dividend announcements