Analysis of Diagnostic Modalities in Hospital-admitted Patients Evaluated for COVID-19

Background/Aim: To assess the diagnostic performance of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), low-dose chest computed tomography (CT), and serological testing, alone and in combinations, as well as routine inflammatory markers in patients evaluated for COVID-19 during the first wave in early 2020. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data of all patients who were admitted to the emergency department due to fever and/or respiratory symptoms. CT scans were rated using the COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) suspicion score. True disease status (COVID-19 - positive vs. negative) was adjudicated by two independent clinicians. Receiver-operating characteristic curves and areas under the curves were calculated for inflammatory markers. Sensitivities and specificities were calculated for RT-PCR, CT, and serology alone, as well as the combinations of RT-PCR+CT, RT-PCR+serology, CT+serology, and all three modalities. Results: Of 221 patients with a median age of 72 years, 113 were classified as COVID-19 positive. Among 180 patients from which data on CT and RT-PCR were available, RT-PCR had the highest sensitivity to detect COVID-19 (0.87; 95%CI=0.78-0.93). Notably, the addition of CT in the analysis increased sensitivity to 0.89 (95%CI=0.8-0.94), but lowered specificity from 1 (95%CI=0.96-1) to 0.9 (95%CI=0.83-0.95). The combination of RT-PCR, CT and serology (n=60 patients with complete dataset) yielded a sensitivity of 0.83 (95%CI=0.61-0.94) and specificity of 0.86 (95%CI=0.72-0.93). Conclusion: RT-PCR was the best single test in patients evaluated for COVID-19. Conversely, the routine performance of chest CT adds little sensitivity and decreases specificity

HIPPIE : a new platform for ambient-pressure X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy at the MAX IV Laboratory

HIPPIE is a soft X-ray beamline on the 3 GeV electron storage ring of the MAX IV Laboratory, equipped with a novel ambient-pressure X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (APXPS) instrument. The endstation is dedicated to performing in situ and operando X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy experiments in the presence of a controlled gaseous atmosphere at pressures up to 30 mbar [1 mbar = 100 Pa] as well as under ultra-high-vacuum conditions. The photon energy range is 250 to 2200 eV in planar polarization and with photon fluxes >10(12) photons s(-1) (500 mA ring current) at a resolving power of greater than 10000 and up to a maximum of 32000. The endstation currently provides two sample environments: a catalysis cell and an electrochemical/liquid cell. The former allows APXPS measurements of solid samples in the presence of a gaseous atmosphere (with a mixture of up to eight gases and a vapour of a liquid) and simultaneous analysis of the inlet/outlet gas composition by online mass spectrometry. The latter is a more versatile setup primarily designed for APXPS at the solid-liquid (dip-and-pull setup) or liquid-gas (liquid microjet) interfaces under full electrochemical control, and it can also be used as an open port for ad hoc-designed non-standard APXPS experiments with different sample environments. The catalysis cell can be further equipped with an IR reflection-absorption spectrometer, allowing for simultaneous APXPS and IR spectroscopy of the samples. The endstation is set up to easily accommodate further sample environments

Investment with a Conscience: Examining the Impact of Pro-Social Attitudes and Perceived Financial Performance on Socially Responsible Investment Behavior

consumer investment behavior, mutual funds, private investors, pro-social attitudes, socially responsible investment,

Trust in scientists and their role in society across 67 countries

Scientific information is crucial for evidence-based decision-making. Public trust in science can help decision-makers act based on the best available evidence, especially during crises such as climate change or the COVID-19 pandemic. However, in recent years the epistemic authority of science has been challenged, causing concerns about low public trust in scientists. Here we interrogated these concerns with a pre-registered 67-country survey of 71,417 respondents on all inhabited continents and find that in most countries, a majority of the public trust scientists and think that scientists should be more engaged in policymaking. We further show that there is a discrepancy between the public’s perceived and desired priorities of scientific research. Moreover, we find variations between and within countries, which we explain with individual-and country-level variables,including political orientation. While these results do not show widespread lack of trust in scientists, we cannot discount the concern that lack of trust in scientists by even a small minority may affect considerations of scientific evidence in policymaking. These findings have implications for scientists and policymakers seeking to maintain and increase trust in scientists

Trust in scientists and their role in society across 67 countries

Scientific information is crucial for evidence-based decision-making. Public trust in science can help decision-makers act based on the best available evidence, especially during crises such as climate change or the COVID-19 pandemic. However, in recent years the epistemic authority of science has been challenged, causing concerns about low public trust in scientists. Here we interrogated these concerns with a pre-registered 67-country survey of 71,417 respondents on all inhabited continents and find that in most countries, a majority of the public trust scientists and think that scientists should be more engaged in policymaking. We further show that there is a discrepancy between the public’s perceived and desired priorities of scientific research. Moreover, we find variations between and within countries, which we explain with individual-and country-level variables,including political orientation. While these results do not show widespread lack of trust in scientists, we cannot discount the concern that lack of trust in scientists by even a small minority may affect considerations of scientific evidence in policymaking. These findings have implications for scientists and policymakers seeking to maintain and increase trust in scientists