The ATLAS trigger system for LHC Run 3 and trigger performance in 2022

The ATLAS trigger system is a crucial component of the ATLAS experiment at the LHC. It is responsible for selecting events in line with the ATLAS physics programme. This paper presents an overview of the changes to the trigger and data acquisition system during the second long shutdown of the LHC, and shows the performance of the trigger system and its components in the proton-proton collisions during the 2022 commissioning period as well as its expected performance in proton-proton and heavy-ion collisions for the remainder of the third LHC data-taking period (2022–2025)

Reporting on methods of subgroup analysis in clinical trials: a survey of four scientific journals

Results of subgroup analysis (SA) reported in randomized clinical trials (RCT) cannot be adequately interpreted without information about the methods used in the study design and the data analysis. Our aim was to show how often inaccurate or incomplete reports occur. First, we selected eight methodological aspects of SA on the basis of their importance to a reader in determining the confidence that should be placed in the author's conclusions regarding such analysis. Then, we reviewed the current practice of reporting these methodological aspects of SA in clinical trials in four leading journals, i.e., the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Lancet, and the American Journal of Public Health. Eight consecutive reports from each journal published after July 1, 1998 were included. Of the 32 trials surveyed, 17 (53%) had at least one SA. Overall, the proportion of RCT reporting a particular methodological aspect ranged from 23 to 94%. Information on whether the SA preceded/followed the analysis was reported in only 7 (41%) of the studies. Of the total possible number of items to be reported, NEJM, JAMA, Lancet and AJPH clearly mentioned 59, 67, 58 and 72%, respectively. We conclude that current reporting of SA in RCT is incomplete and inaccurate. The results of such SA may have harmful effects on treatment recommendations if accepted without judicious scrutiny. We recommend that editors improve the reporting of SA in RCT by giving authors a list of the important items to be reported

Evidence that blood pressure remains under the control of arterial baroreceptors in renal hypertensive rats

The purpose of the present study was to determine the range of the influence of the baroreflex on blood pressure in chronic renal hypertensive rats. Supramaximal electrical stimulation of the aortic depressor nerve and section of the baroreceptor nerves (sinoaortic denervation) were used to obtain a global analysis of the baroreceptor-sympathetic reflex in normotensive control and in chronic (2 months) 1-kidney, 1-clip hypertensive rats. The fall in blood pressure produced by electrical baroreceptor stimulation was greater in renal hypertensive rats than in normotensive controls (right nerve: -47 ± 8 vs -23 ± 4 mmHg; left nerve: -51 ± 7 vs -30 ± 4 mmHg; and both right and left nerves: -50 ± 8 vs -30 ± 4 mmHg; P < 0.05). Furthermore, the increase in blood pressure level produced by baroreceptor denervation in chronic renal hypertensive rats was similar to that observed in control animals 2-5 h (control: 163 ± 5 vs 121 ± 1 mmHg; 1K-1C: 203 ± 7 vs 170 ± 5 mmHg; P < 0.05) and 24 h (control: 149 ± 3 vs 121 ± 1 mmHg; 1K-1C: 198 ± 8 vs 170 ± 5 mmHg; P < 0.05) after sinoaortic denervation. Taken together, these data indicate that the central and peripheral components of the baroreflex are acting efficiently at higher arterial pressure in renal hypertensive rats when the aortic nerve is maximally stimulated or the activity is abolished