Earth system science frontiers - an early career perspective

The exigencies of the global community toward Earth system science will increase in the future as the human population, economies, and the human footprint on the planet continue to grow. This growth, combined with intensifying urbanization, will inevitably exert increasing pressure on all ecosystem services. A unified interdisciplinary approach to Earth system science is required that can address this challenge, integrate technical demands and long-term visions, and reconcile user demands with scientific feasibility. Together with the research arms of the World Meteorological Organization, the Young Earth System Scientists community has gathered early-career scientists from around the world to initiate a discussion about frontiers of Earth system science. To provide optimal information for society, Earth system science has to provide a comprehensive understanding of the physical processes that drive the Earth system and anthropogenic influences. This understanding will be reflected in seamless prediction systems for environmental processes that are robust and instructive to local users on all scales. Such prediction systems require improved physical process understanding, more high-resolution global observations, and advanced modeling capability, as well as high-performance computing on unprecedented scales. At the same time, the robustness and usability of such prediction systems also depend on deepening our understanding of the entire Earth system and improved communication between end users and researchers. Earth system science is the fundamental baseline for understanding the Earth’s capacity to accommodate humanity, and it provides a means to have a rational discussion about the consequences and limits of anthropogenic influence on Earth. Without its progress, truly sustainable development will be impossible. © 2017 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses)

C-Reactive Protein, Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate and Orthopedic Implant Infection

BACKGROUND: C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) have been shown to be useful for diagnosis of prosthetic hip and knee infection. Little information is available on CRP and ESR in patients undergoing revision or resection of shoulder arthroplasties or spine implants. METHODS/RESULTS: We analyzed preoperative CRP and ESR in 636 subjects who underwent knee (n=297), hip (n=221) or shoulder (n=64) arthroplasty, or spine implant (n=54) removal. A standardized definition of orthopedic implant-associated infection was applied. Receiver operating curve analysis was used to determine ideal cutoff values for differentiating infected from non-infected cases. ESR was significantly different in subjects with aseptic failure infection of knee (median 11 and 53.5 mm/h, respectively, p=<0.0001) and hip (median 11 and 30 mm/h, respectively, p=<0.0001) arthroplasties and spine implants (median 10 and 48.5 mm/h, respectively, p=0.0033), but not shoulder arthroplasties (median 10 and 9 mm/h, respectively, p=0.9883). Optimized ESR cutoffs for knee, hip and shoulder arthroplasties and spine implants were 19, 13, 26, and 45 mm/h, respectively. Using these cutoffs, sensitivity and specificity to detect infection were 89 and 74% for knee, 82 and 60% for hip, and 32 and 93% for shoulder arthroplasties, and 57 and 90% for spine implants. CRP was significantly different in subjects with aseptic failure and infection of knee (median 4 and 51 mg/l, respectively, p<0.0001), hip (median 3 and 18 mg/l, respectively, p<0.0001), and shoulder (median 3 and 10 mg/l, respectively, p=0.01) arthroplasties, and spine implants (median 3 and 20 mg/l, respectively, p=0.0011). Optimized CRP cutoffs for knee, hip, and shoulder arthroplasties, and spine implants were 14.5, 10.3, 7, and 4.6 mg/l, respectively. Using these cutoffs, sensitivity and specificity to detect infection were 79 and 88% for knee, 74 and 79% for hip, and 63 and 73% for shoulder arthroplasties, and 79 and 68% for spine implants. CONCLUSION: CRP and ESR have poor sensitivity for the diagnosis of shoulder implant infection. A CRP of 4.6 mg/l had a sensitivity of 79 and a specificity of 68% to detect infection of spine implants

Investigation of Metallized and Nonmetallized Hydroxyl Terminated Polybutadiene/Hydrogen Peroxide Hybrid Rockets

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/77070/1/AIAA-22091-612.pd