Perfiles N(h) sobre Cuba y su comparación con los resultados del IRI

Con base en el cálculo de perfiles N(h) promedio se compararon los resultados experimentales correspondientes a 4 meses de mínima y 4 meses de máxima actividad solar con los calculados para dichas condiciones mediante el modelo empírico global "Ionosfera Internacional de Referencia" (lR1). El IRI modela razonablemente la región del máximo de la capa F2 sobre Cuba. mientras que las discrepancias se incrementan notablemente con la disminución en altura. En general. la concordancia entre los datos modelados y los experimentales no depende claramente de la actividad solar y es mayor durante el día y en los equinoccios que en sus condiciones nocturnas y solsticiales. doi: https://doi.org/10.22201/igeof.00167169p.1992.31.1.130

Morphological characteristics of ionospheric E layer over El Cerrillo station, Mexico during magnetically quiet conditions

Se describe la región E de la ionosfera observada en la estación ionosférica de El Cerrillo, México bajo condiciones magneto tranquilas y para diferentes niveles de actividad solar. Se obtiene que su comportamiento es típico de una región en equilibrio fotoquímico y puede ser bien descrita a partir de la Teoría de Capa Simple de Chapman. Si se elimina la suposición de atmósfera isotérmica y se consideran gradientes de escala de altura constantes dH/dh==0.2, los valores del exponente N, encontrados por regresión lineal entre la frecuencia crítica y el ángulo cenital del Sol, son muy semejantes a los predichos por la teoría de Chapman. Sus máximos valores de frecuencia (concentración) se encuentran un poco después del mediodía local y dependen fuertemente del nivel de actividad solar. Bajo condiciones diurnas, foE se incrementa entre 7 y 10 veces, teniendo la máxima razón durante períodos de Baja Actividad Solar. Se observa una clara tendencia de incremento de foE con la actividad solar. doi: https://doi.org/10.22201/igeof.00167169p.1996.35.1.110

High-Precision Spectroscopy of 20{20}O Benchmarking Ab Initio Calculations in Light Nuclei

International audienceHigh-precision spectroscopy of 20O benchmarking ab-initio calculations in light nucleiI. Zanon,1, 2 E. Cl´ement,3 A. Goasduff,1 J. Men´endez,4 T. Miyagi,5, 6, 7 M. Assi´e,8 M. Ciemala,9F. Flavigny,10 A. Lemasson,3 A. Matta,10 D. Ramos,3 M. Rejmund,3 L. Achouri,10 D. Ackermann,3D. Barrientos,11 D. Beaumel,8 G. Benzoni,12 A.J. Boston,13 H.C. Boston,13 S. Bottoni,14, 12 A. Bracco,12, 14D. Brugnara,1, 15 G. de France,3 N. de Sereville,8 F. Delaunay,10 P. Desesquelles,8 F. Didierjean,16C. Domingo-Prato,17 J. Dudouet,18 J. Eberth,19 D. Fern´andez,20 C. Foug`eres,3 A. Gadea,17 F. Galtarossa,8V. Girard-Alcindor,3 V. Gonzales,21 A. Gottardo,1 F. Hammache,8 L.J. Harkness-Brennan,13 H. Hess,19D.S Judson,13 A. Jungclaus,22 A. Ka¸ska¸s,23 Y.H. Kim,24 A. Ku¸so˘glu,25 M. Labiche,26 S. Leblond,3C. Lenain,10 S.M. Lenzi,27 S. Leoni,12 H. Li,3 J. Ljungvall,8 J. Lois-Fuentes,20 A. Lopez-Martens,8A. Maj,28 R. Menegazzo,27 D. Mengoni,15, 27 C. Michelagnoli,3, 24 B. Million,12 D.R. Napoli,1 J. Nyberg,29G. Pasqualato,15, 27 Zs. Podolyak,30 A. Pullia,12 B. Quintana,31 F.Recchia,15, 27 D. Regueira-Castro,20 P. Reiter,19K. Rezynkina,32 J.S. Rojo,33 M.D. Salsac,34 E. Sanchis,21 M. S¸enyi˘git,23 M. Siciliano,34, 35 D. Sohler,36O. Stezowski,18 Ch. Theisen,34 A. Utepov,3, 10 J.J. Valiente-Dob´on,1 D. Verney,8 and M. Zielinska341INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Legnaro, Legnaro, Italy.2Dipartimento di Fisica e Scienze della Terra, Universit`a di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.3Grand Acc´el´erateur National d’Ions Lourds (GANIL), CEA/DRF-CNRS/IN2P3, Caen, France4Department of Quantum Physics and Astrophysics and Institute of Cosmos Sciences, University of Barcelona, Spain5Technische Universit¨at Darmstadt, Department of Physics, Darmstadt, Germany6ExtreMe Matter Institute, GSI Helmholtzzentrum f¨ur Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany7Max-Planck-Institut f¨ur Kernphysik, Heidelberg, Germany8Universit´e Paris-Saclay, CNRS/IN2P3, IJCLab, 91405 Orsay, France9IFJ PAN, Krakow, Poland.10Universit´e de Caen Normandie, ENSICAEN, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC Caen UMR6534, F-14000 Caen, France.11CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland12INFN Sezione di Milano, I-20133 Milano, Italy13Oliver Lodge Laboratory, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.14Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit`a di Milano, Milano, Italy15Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit`a di Padova, Padova, Italy.16Universit´e de Strasbourg, IPHC, Strasbourg, France.17Instituto de Fisica Corpuscolar, CSIC-Universidad de Valencia, E-46071 Valencia, Spain.18Universit´e de Lyon, Universit´e Lyon-1, CNRS/IN2P3,UMR5822, IP2I, F-69622 Villeurbanne Cedex, France19Institut f¨ur Kernphysik, Universit¨at zu K¨oln, Z¨ulpicher Str. 77, D-50937 K¨oln, Germany20IGFAE and Dpt. de F´ısica de Part´ıculas, Univ. of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain21Departamento de Ingenier´ıa Electr´onica, Universitat de Valencia, Burjassot, Valencia, Spain22Instituto de Estructura de la Materia, CSIC, Madrid, E-28006 Madrid, Spain23Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Ankara University, 06100 Besevler - Ankara, Turkey24Institue Laue-Langevin, Grenoble, France.25Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Istanbul University, Vezneciler/Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey.26STFC Daresbury Laboratory, Daresbury, Warrington, WA4 4AD, UK27INFN, Sezione di Padova, I-35131 Padova, Italy.28The Henryk Niewodnicza´nski Institute of Nuclear Physics,Polish Academy of Sciences, 31-342 Krak´ow, Poland29Department of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University, SE-75120 Uppsala, Sweden30Department of Physics, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH, UK31Laboratorio de Radiaciones Ionizantes, Departamento de F´ısica Fundamental,Universidad de Salamanca, E-37008 Salamanca, Spain32Universit´e de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, F-67000 Strasbourg, France33Department of Physics, University of York, York, UK.34Irfu, CEA, Universit´e Paris-Saclay, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France35Physics Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont (IL) 60439, United States.36Institute for Nuclear Research, Atomki, 4001 Debrecen, HungaryThe excited states of unstable 20O were investigated via γ-ray spectroscopy following the19O(d, p)20O reaction at 8 AMeV. By exploiting the Doppler Shift Attenuation Method, the lifetimeof the 2+2 and 3+1 states were firmly established. From the γ-ray branching and E2/M1 mixing ratiosfor transitions deexciting the 2+2 and 3+1 states, the B(E2) and B(M1) were determined. Variouschiral effective field theory Hamiltonians, describing the nuclear properties beyond ground states,along with a standard USDB interaction, were compared with the experimentally obtained data.Such a comparison for a large set of γ-ray transition probabilities with the valence space in medium 2similarity renormalization group ab-initio calculations was performed for the first time in a nucleusfar from stability. It was shown that the ab-initio approaches using chiral EFT forces are challengedby detailed high-precision spectroscopic properties of nuclei. The reduced transition probabilitieswere found to be a very constraining test of the performance of the ab-initio model

High-Precision Spectroscopy of 20{20}O Benchmarking Ab Initio Calculations in Light Nuclei

International audienceHigh-precision spectroscopy of 20O benchmarking ab-initio calculations in light nucleiI. Zanon,1, 2 E. Cl´ement,3 A. Goasduff,1 J. Men´endez,4 T. Miyagi,5, 6, 7 M. Assi´e,8 M. Ciemala,9F. Flavigny,10 A. Lemasson,3 A. Matta,10 D. Ramos,3 M. Rejmund,3 L. Achouri,10 D. Ackermann,3D. Barrientos,11 D. Beaumel,8 G. Benzoni,12 A.J. Boston,13 H.C. Boston,13 S. Bottoni,14, 12 A. Bracco,12, 14D. Brugnara,1, 15 G. de France,3 N. de Sereville,8 F. Delaunay,10 P. Desesquelles,8 F. Didierjean,16C. Domingo-Prato,17 J. Dudouet,18 J. Eberth,19 D. Fern´andez,20 C. Foug`eres,3 A. Gadea,17 F. Galtarossa,8V. Girard-Alcindor,3 V. Gonzales,21 A. Gottardo,1 F. Hammache,8 L.J. Harkness-Brennan,13 H. Hess,19D.S Judson,13 A. Jungclaus,22 A. Ka¸ska¸s,23 Y.H. Kim,24 A. Ku¸so˘glu,25 M. Labiche,26 S. Leblond,3C. Lenain,10 S.M. Lenzi,27 S. Leoni,12 H. Li,3 J. Ljungvall,8 J. Lois-Fuentes,20 A. Lopez-Martens,8A. Maj,28 R. Menegazzo,27 D. Mengoni,15, 27 C. Michelagnoli,3, 24 B. Million,12 D.R. Napoli,1 J. Nyberg,29G. Pasqualato,15, 27 Zs. Podolyak,30 A. Pullia,12 B. Quintana,31 F.Recchia,15, 27 D. Regueira-Castro,20 P. Reiter,19K. Rezynkina,32 J.S. Rojo,33 M.D. Salsac,34 E. Sanchis,21 M. S¸enyi˘git,23 M. Siciliano,34, 35 D. Sohler,36O. Stezowski,18 Ch. Theisen,34 A. Utepov,3, 10 J.J. Valiente-Dob´on,1 D. Verney,8 and M. Zielinska341INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Legnaro, Legnaro, Italy.2Dipartimento di Fisica e Scienze della Terra, Universit`a di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.3Grand Acc´el´erateur National d’Ions Lourds (GANIL), CEA/DRF-CNRS/IN2P3, Caen, France4Department of Quantum Physics and Astrophysics and Institute of Cosmos Sciences, University of Barcelona, Spain5Technische Universit¨at Darmstadt, Department of Physics, Darmstadt, Germany6ExtreMe Matter Institute, GSI Helmholtzzentrum f¨ur Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany7Max-Planck-Institut f¨ur Kernphysik, Heidelberg, Germany8Universit´e Paris-Saclay, CNRS/IN2P3, IJCLab, 91405 Orsay, France9IFJ PAN, Krakow, Poland.10Universit´e de Caen Normandie, ENSICAEN, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC Caen UMR6534, F-14000 Caen, France.11CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland12INFN Sezione di Milano, I-20133 Milano, Italy13Oliver Lodge Laboratory, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.14Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit`a di Milano, Milano, Italy15Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit`a di Padova, Padova, Italy.16Universit´e de Strasbourg, IPHC, Strasbourg, France.17Instituto de Fisica Corpuscolar, CSIC-Universidad de Valencia, E-46071 Valencia, Spain.18Universit´e de Lyon, Universit´e Lyon-1, CNRS/IN2P3,UMR5822, IP2I, F-69622 Villeurbanne Cedex, France19Institut f¨ur Kernphysik, Universit¨at zu K¨oln, Z¨ulpicher Str. 77, D-50937 K¨oln, Germany20IGFAE and Dpt. de F´ısica de Part´ıculas, Univ. of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain21Departamento de Ingenier´ıa Electr´onica, Universitat de Valencia, Burjassot, Valencia, Spain22Instituto de Estructura de la Materia, CSIC, Madrid, E-28006 Madrid, Spain23Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Ankara University, 06100 Besevler - Ankara, Turkey24Institue Laue-Langevin, Grenoble, France.25Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Istanbul University, Vezneciler/Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey.26STFC Daresbury Laboratory, Daresbury, Warrington, WA4 4AD, UK27INFN, Sezione di Padova, I-35131 Padova, Italy.28The Henryk Niewodnicza´nski Institute of Nuclear Physics,Polish Academy of Sciences, 31-342 Krak´ow, Poland29Department of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University, SE-75120 Uppsala, Sweden30Department of Physics, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH, UK31Laboratorio de Radiaciones Ionizantes, Departamento de F´ısica Fundamental,Universidad de Salamanca, E-37008 Salamanca, Spain32Universit´e de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, F-67000 Strasbourg, France33Department of Physics, University of York, York, UK.34Irfu, CEA, Universit´e Paris-Saclay, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France35Physics Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont (IL) 60439, United States.36Institute for Nuclear Research, Atomki, 4001 Debrecen, HungaryThe excited states of unstable 20O were investigated via γ-ray spectroscopy following the19O(d, p)20O reaction at 8 AMeV. By exploiting the Doppler Shift Attenuation Method, the lifetimeof the 2+2 and 3+1 states were firmly established. From the γ-ray branching and E2/M1 mixing ratiosfor transitions deexciting the 2+2 and 3+1 states, the B(E2) and B(M1) were determined. Variouschiral effective field theory Hamiltonians, describing the nuclear properties beyond ground states,along with a standard USDB interaction, were compared with the experimentally obtained data.Such a comparison for a large set of γ-ray transition probabilities with the valence space in medium 2similarity renormalization group ab-initio calculations was performed for the first time in a nucleusfar from stability. It was shown that the ab-initio approaches using chiral EFT forces are challengedby detailed high-precision spectroscopic properties of nuclei. The reduced transition probabilitieswere found to be a very constraining test of the performance of the ab-initio model

Bacterial etiology of community-acquired pneumonia in immunocompetent hospitalized patients and appropriateness of empirical treatment recommendations: an international point-prevalence study

An accurate knowledge of the epidemiology of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is key for selecting appropriate antimicrobial treatments. Very few etiological studies assessed the appropriateness of empiric guideline recommendations at a multinational level. This study aims at the following: (i) describing the bacterial etiologic distribution of CAP and (ii) assessing the appropriateness of the empirical treatment recommendations by clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for CAP in light of the bacterial pathogens diagnosed as causative agents of CAP. Secondary analysis of the GLIMP, a point-prevalence international study which enrolled adults hospitalized with CAP in 2015. The analysis was limited to immunocompetent patients tested for bacterial CAP agents within 24 h of admission. The CAP CPGs evaluated included the following: the 2007 and 2019 American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America (ATS/IDSA), the European Respiratory Society (ERS), and selected country-specific CPGs. Among 2564 patients enrolled, 35.3% had an identifiable pathogen. Streptococcus pneumoniae (8.2%) was the most frequently identified pathogen, followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (4.1%) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (3.4%). CPGs appropriately recommend covering more than 90% of all the potential pathogens causing CAP, with the exception of patients enrolled from Germany, Pakistan, and Croatia. The 2019 ATS/IDSA CPGs appropriately recommend covering 93.6% of the cases compared with 90.3% of the ERS CPGs (p < 0.01). S. pneumoniae remains the most common pathogen in patients hospitalized with CAP. Multinational CPG recommendations for patients with CAP seem to appropriately cover the most common pathogens and should be strongly encouraged for the management of CAP patients.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Prevalence and risk factors for Enterobacteriaceae in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia

Background and objective Enterobacteriaceae (EB) spp. family is known to include potentially multidrug-resistant (MDR) microorganisms, and remains as an important cause of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) associated with high mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and specific risk factors associated with EB and MDR-EB in a cohort of hospitalized adults with CAP. Methods We performed a multinational, point-prevalence study of adult patients hospitalized with CAP. MDR-EB was defined when >= 3 antimicrobial classes were identified as non-susceptible. Risk factors assessment was also performed for patients with EB and MDR-EB infection. Results Of the 3193 patients enrolled with CAP, 197 (6%) had a positive culture with EB. Fifty-one percent (n = 100) of EB were resistant to at least one antibiotic and 19% (n = 38) had MDR-EB. The most commonly EB identified were Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 111, 56%) and Escherichia coli (n = 56, 28%). The risk factors that were independently associated with EB CAP were male gender, severe CAP, underweight (body mass index (BMI) < 18.5) and prior extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) infection. Additionally, prior ESBL infection, being underweight, cardiovascular diseases and hospitalization in the last 12 months were independently associated with MDR-EB CAP. Conclusion This study of adults hospitalized with CAP found a prevalence of EB of 6% and MDR-EB of 1.2%, respectively. The presence of specific risk factors, such as prior ESBL infection and being underweight, should raise the clinical suspicion for EB and MDR-EB in patients hospitalized with CAP

Microbiological testing of adults hospitalised with community-acquired pneumonia: an international study

This study aimed to describe real-life microbiological testing of adults hospitalised with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and to assess concordance with the 2007 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)/American Thoracic Society (ATS) and 2011 European Respiratory Society (ERS) CAP guidelines. This was a cohort study based on the Global Initiative for Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Pneumonia (GLIMP) database, which contains point-prevalence data on adults hospitalised with CAP across 54 countries during 2015. In total, 3702 patients were included. Testing was performed in 3217 patients, and included blood culture (71.1%), sputum culture (61.8%), Legionella urinary antigen test (30.1%), pneumococcal urinary antigen test (30.0%), viral testing (14.9%), acute-phase serology (8.8%), bronchoalveolar lavage culture (8.4%) and pleural fluid culture (3.2%). A pathogen was detected in 1173 (36.5%) patients. Testing attitudes varied significantly according to geography and disease severity. Testing was concordant with IDSA/ATS and ERS guidelines in 16.7% and 23.9% of patients, respectively. IDSA/ATS concordance was higher in Europe than in North America (21.5% versus 9.8%; p<0.01), while ERS concordance was higher in North America than in Europe (33.5% versus 19.5%; p<0.01). Testing practices of adults hospitalised with CAP varied significantly by geography and disease severity. There was a wide discordance between real-life testing practices and IDSA/ATS/ERS guideline recommendations

Prevalence and Etiology of Community-acquired Pneumonia in Immunocompromised Patients

BACKGROUND: The correct management of immunocompromised patients with pneumonia is debated. We evaluated the prevalence, risk factors, and characteristics of immunocompromised patients coming from the community with pneumonia. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of an international, multicenter study enrolling adult patients coming from the community with pneumonia and hospitalized in 222 hospitals in 54 countries worldwide. Risk factors for immunocompromise included AIDS, aplastic anemia, asplenia, hematological cancer, chemotherapy, neutropenia, biological drug use, lung transplantation, chronic steroid use, and solid tumor. RESULTS: At least 1 risk factor for immunocompromise was recorded in 18% of the 3702 patients enrolled. The prevalences of risk factors significantly differed across continents and countries, with chronic steroid use (45%), hematological cancer (25%), and chemotherapy (22%) the most common. Among immunocompromised patients, community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) pathogens were the most frequently identified, and prevalences did not differ from those in immunocompetent patients. Risk factors for immunocompromise were independently associated with neither Pseudomonas aeruginosa nor non-community-acquired bacteria. Specific risk factors were independently associated with fungal infections (odds ratio for AIDS and hematological cancer, 15.10 and 4.65, respectively; both P = .001), mycobacterial infections (AIDS; P = .006), and viral infections other than influenza (hematological cancer, 5.49; P &lt; .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings could be considered by clinicians in prescribing empiric antibiotic therapy for CAP in immunocompromised patients. Patients with AIDS and hematological cancer admitted with CAP may have higher prevalences of fungi, mycobacteria, and noninfluenza viruses