Graphene-Based Nanophotonic Devices

Graphene is an ideal 2D material that breaks the fundamental properties of size and speed limits by photonics and electronics, respectively. Graphene is also an ideal material for bridging electronic and photonic devices. Graphene offers several functions of modulation, emission, signal transmission, and detection of wideband and short band infrared frequency spectrum. Graphene has improved human life in multiple ways of low-cost display devices and touchscreen structures, energy harvesting devices (solar cells), optical communication components (modulator, polarizer, detector, laser generation). There is numerous literature is available on graphene synthesis, properties, devices, and applications. However, the main interest among the scientist, researchers, and students to start with the numerical and computational process for the graphene-based nanophotonic devices. This chapter also includes the examples of graphene applications in optoelectronics devices, P-N junction diodes, photodiode structure which are fundamental devices for the solar cell and the optical modulation

COVID-19 vaccine boosters for all adults: An optimal U.s. approach?

By 20 October 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had amended its Emergency Use Authorizations for immunocompetent adults who previously received the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines. For the 2-dose Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, the FDA permitted a single booster dose for adults aged 65 years or older and adults aged 18 to 64 years at high-risk for severe COVID-19 or at high risk for occupational or institutional COVID-19 exposure. For the single-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine, the FDA permitted a single booster dose for all adults aged 18 or older. These eligibility schemes were endorsed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shortly after FDA approval

Comparative Effectiveness of Personalized Lifestyle Management Strategies for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Reduction

BACKGROUND: Evidence shows that healthy diet, exercise, smoking interventions, and stress reduction reduce cardiovascular disease risk. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of these lifestyle interventions for individual risk profiles and determine their rank order in reducing 10-year cardiovascular disease risk. METHODS AND RESULTS: We computed risks using the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations for a variety of individual profiles. Using published literature on risk factor reductions through diverse lifestyle interventions-group therapy for stopping smoking, Mediterranean diet, aerobic exercise (walking), and yoga-we calculated the risk reduction through each of these interventions to determine the strategy associated with the maximum benefit for each profile. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the results. In the base-case analysis, yoga was associated with the largest 10-year cardiovascular disease risk reductions (maximum absolute reduction 16.7% for the highest-risk individuals). Walking generally ranked second (max 11.4%), followed by Mediterranean diet (max 9.2%), and group therapy for smoking (max 1.6%). If the individual was a current smoker and successfully quit smoking (ie, achieved complete smoking cessation), then stopping smoking yielded the largest reduction. Probabilistic and 1-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the demonstrated trend. CONCLUSIONS: This study reports the comparative effectiveness of several forms of lifestyle modifications and found smoking cessation and yoga to be the most effective forms of cardiovascular disease prevention. Future research should focus on patient adherence to personalized therapies, cost-effectiveness of these strategies, and the potential for enhanced benefit when interventions are performed simultaneously rather than as single measures

A Comparative Assessment of Non-Laboratory-Based versus Commonly Used Laboratory-Based Cardiovascular Disease Risk Scores in the NHANES III Population

National and international primary CVD risk screening guidelines focus on using total CVD risk scores. Recently, we developed a non-laboratory-based CVD risk score (inputs: age, sex, smoking, diabetes, systolic blood pressure, treatment of hypertension, body-mass index), which can assess risk faster and at lower costs compared to laboratory-based scores (inputs include cholesterol values). We aimed to assess the exchangeability of the non-laboratory-based risk score to four commonly used laboratory-based scores (Framingham CVD [2008, 1991 versions], and Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation [SCORE] for low and high risk settings) in an external validation population.Analyses were based on individual-level, score-specific rankings of risk for adults in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) aged 25–74 years, without history of CVD or cancer (n = 5,999). Risk characterization agreement was based on overlap in dichotomous risk characterization (thresholds of 10-year risk >10–20%) and Spearman rank correlation. Risk discrimination was assessed using receiver operator characteristic curve analysis (10-year CVD death outcome). Risk characterization agreement ranged from 91.9–95.7% and 94.2–95.1% with Spearman correlation ranges of 0.957–0.980 and 0.946–0.970 for men and women, respectively. In men, c-statistics for the non-laboratory-based, Framingham (2008, 1991), and SCORE (high, low) functions were 0.782, 0.776, 0.781, 0.785, and 0.785, with p-values for differences relative to the non-laboratory-based score of 0.44, 0.89, 0.68 and 0.65, respectively. In women, the corresponding c-statistics were 0.809, 0.834, 0.821, 0.792, and 0.792, with corresponding p-values of 0.04, 0.34, 0.11 and 0.09, respectively.Every score discriminated risk of CVD death well, and there was high agreement in risk characterization between non-laboratory-based and laboratory-based risk scores, which suggests that the non-laboratory-based score can be a useful proxy for Framingham or SCORE functions in resource-limited settings. Future external validation studies can assess whether the sex-specific risk discrimination results hold in other populations

Comparative assessment of absolute cardiovascular disease risk characterization from non-laboratory-based risk assessment in South African populations

Background: All rigorous primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines recommend absolute CVD risk scores to identify high- and low-risk patients, but laboratory testing can be impractical in low- and middle-income countries. The purpose of this study was to compare the ranking performance of a simple, non-laboratory-based risk score to laboratory-based scores in various South African populations. Methods: We calculated and compared 10-year CVD (or coronary heart disease (CHD)) risk for 14,772 adults from thirteen cross-sectional South African populations (data collected from 1987 to 2009). Risk characterization performance for the non-laboratory-based score was assessed by comparing rankings of risk with six laboratory-based scores (three versions of Framingham risk, SCORE for high- and low-risk countries, and CUORE) using Spearman rank correlation and percent of population equivalently characterized as ‘high’ or ‘low’ risk. Total 10-year non-laboratory-based risk of CVD death was also calculated for a representative cross-section from the 1998 South African Demographic Health Survey (DHS, n = 9,379) to estimate the national burden of CVD mortality risk. Results: Spearman correlation coefficients for the non-laboratory-based score with the laboratory-based scores ranged from 0.88 to 0.986. Using conventional thresholds for CVD risk (10% to 20% 10-year CVD risk), 90% to 92% of men and 94% to 97% of women were equivalently characterized as ‘high’ or ‘low’ risk using the non-laboratory-based and Framingham (2008) CVD risk score. These results were robust across the six risk scores evaluated and the thirteen cross-sectional datasets, with few exceptions (lower agreement between the non-laboratory-based and Framingham (1991) CHD risk scores). Approximately 18% of adults in the DHS population were characterized as ‘high CVD risk’ (10-year CVD death risk >20%) using the non-laboratory-based score. Conclusions: We found a high level of correlation between a simple, non-laboratory-based CVD risk score and commonly-used laboratory-based risk scores. The burden of CVD mortality risk was high for men and women in South Africa. The policy and clinical implications are that fast, low-cost screening tools can lead to similar risk assessment results compared to time- and resource-intensive approaches. Until setting-specific cohort studies can derive and validate country-specific risk scores, non-laboratory-based CVD risk assessment could be an effective and efficient primary CVD screening approach in South Africa