Chaste: a test-driven approach to software development for biological modelling

Chaste (‘Cancer, heart and soft-tissue environment’) is a software library and a set of test suites for computational simulations in the domain of biology. Current functionality has arisen from modelling in the fields of cancer, cardiac physiology and soft-tissue mechanics. It is released under the LGPL 2.1 licence.\ud \ud Chaste has been developed using agile programming methods. The project began in 2005 when it was reasoned that the modelling of a variety of physiological phenomena required both a generic mathematical modelling framework, and a generic computational/simulation framework. The Chaste project evolved from the Integrative Biology (IB) e-Science Project, an inter-institutional project aimed at developing a suitable IT infrastructure to support physiome-level computational modelling, with a primary focus on cardiac and cancer modelling

Quantum dynamics of a model for two Josephson-coupled Bose--Einstein condensates

In this work we investigate the quantum dynamics of a model for two single-mode Bose--Einstein condensates which are coupled via Josephson tunneling. Using direct numerical diagonalisation of the Hamiltonian, we compute the time evolution of the expectation value for the relative particle number across a wide range of couplings. Our analysis shows that the system exhibits rich and complex behaviours varying between harmonic and non-harmonic oscillations, particularly around the threshold coupling between the delocalised and self-trapping phases. We show that these behaviours are dependent on both the initial state of the system as well as regime of the coupling. In addition, a study of the dynamics for the variance of the relative particle number expectation and the entanglement for different initial states is presented in detail.Comment: 15 pages, 8 eps figures, accepted in J. Phys.

Constellations of identity: place-ma(r)king beyond heritage

This paper will critically consider the different ways in which history and belonging have been treated in artworks situated in the Citadel development in Ayr on the West coast of Scotland. It will focus upon one artwork, Constellation by Stephen Hurrel, as an alternative to the more conventional landscapes of heritage which are adjacent, to examine the relationship between personal history and place history and argue the primacy of participatory process in the creation of place and any artwork therein. Through his artwork, Hurrel has attempted to adopt a material process through which place can be created performatively but, in part due to its non-representational form, proves problematic, aesthetically and longitudinally, in wholly engaging the community. The paper will suggest that through variants of ‘new genre public art’ such as this, personal and place histories can be actively re-created through the redevelopment of contemporary urban landscapes but also highlight the complexities and indeterminacies involved in the relationship between artwork, people and place

Experiences of Receiving a Diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Survey of Adults in the United Kingdom

A total of 128 adults with high-functioning autism spectrum disorders were surveyed concerning the process they went through to obtain their diagnosis and the subsequent support they received. Results suggested that routes to diagnosis were quite heterogeneous and overall levels of satisfaction with the diagnostic process were mixed; 40 % of respondents were ‘very/quite’ dissatisfied, whilst 47 % were ‘very/quite’ satisfied. The extent of delays, number of professionals seen, quality of information given at diagnosis and levels of post-diagnostic support predicted overall satisfaction with the diagnostic process. Important areas and suggestions for improvement were noted for all stages of the diagnostic pathway. Respondents also displayed above average levels of depressed mood and anxiety, with greater support being requested in this area

COVID-19: Rapid antigen detection for SARS-CoV-2 by lateral flow assay: A national systematic evaluation of sensitivity and specificity for mass-testing

Background Lateral flow device (LFD) viral antigen immunoassays have been developed around the world as diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection. They have been proposed to deliver an infrastructure-light, cost-economical solution giving results within half an hour. Methods LFDs were initially reviewed by a Department of Health and Social Care team, part of the UK government, from which 64 were selected for further evaluation from 1st August to 15th December 2020. Standardised laboratory evaluations, and for those that met the published criteria, field testing in the Falcon-C19 research study and UK pilots were performed (UK COVID-19 testing centres, hospital, schools, armed forces). Findings 4/64 LFDs so far have desirable performance characteristics (orient Gene, Deepblue, Abbott and Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test). All these LFDs have a viral antigen detection of >90% at 100,000 RNA copies/ml. 8951 Innova LFD tests were performed with a kit failure rate of 5.6% (502/8951, 95% CI: 5.1–6.1), false positive rate of 0.32% (22/6954, 95% CI: 0.20–0.48). Viral antigen detection/sensitivity across the sampling cohort when performed by laboratory scientists was 78.8% (156/198, 95% CI 72.4–84.3). Interpretation Our results suggest LFDs have promising performance characteristics for mass population testing and can be used to identify infectious positive individuals. The Innova LFD shows good viral antigen detection/sensitivity with excellent specificity, although kit failure rates and the impact of training are potential issues. These results support the expanded evaluation of LFDs, and assessment of greater access to testing on COVID-19 transmission. Funding Department of Health and Social Care. University of Oxford. Public Health England Porton Down, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, National Institute of Health Research

Determinants of recovery from post-COVID-19 dyspnoea: analysis of UK prospective cohorts of hospitalised COVID-19 patients and community-based controls

Background The risk factors for recovery from COVID-19 dyspnoea are poorly understood. We investigated determinants of recovery from dyspnoea in adults with COVID-19 and compared these to determinants of recovery from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea. Methods We used data from two prospective cohort studies: PHOSP-COVID (patients hospitalised between March 2020 and April 2021 with COVID-19) and COVIDENCE UK (community cohort studied over the same time period). PHOSP-COVID data were collected during hospitalisation and at 5-month and 1-year follow-up visits. COVIDENCE UK data were obtained through baseline and monthly online questionnaires. Dyspnoea was measured in both cohorts with the Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify determinants associated with a reduction in dyspnoea between 5-month and 1-year follow-up. Findings We included 990 PHOSP-COVID and 3309 COVIDENCE UK participants. We observed higher odds of improvement between 5-month and 1-year follow-up among PHOSP-COVID participants who were younger (odds ratio 1.02 per year, 95% CI 1.01–1.03), male (1.54, 1.16–2.04), neither obese nor severely obese (1.82, 1.06–3.13 and 4.19, 2.14–8.19, respectively), had no pre-existing anxiety or depression (1.56, 1.09–2.22) or cardiovascular disease (1.33, 1.00–1.79), and shorter hospital admission (1.01 per day, 1.00–1.02). Similar associations were found in those recovering from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea, excluding age (and length of hospital admission). Interpretation Factors associated with dyspnoea recovery at 1-year post-discharge among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were similar to those among community controls without COVID-19. Funding PHOSP-COVID is supported by a grant from the MRC-UK Research and Innovation and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) rapid response panel to tackle COVID-19. The views expressed in the publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. COVIDENCE UK is supported by the UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health Research, and Barts Charity. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders