A new astrometric measurement and reduction of USNO photographic observations of Phobos and Deimos: 1967–1997

Context. Accurate positional measurements of planets and satellites are used to improve our knowledge of both their orbits and their dynamics and to infer the accuracy of the planet and satellite ephemerides. Aims. In the framework of the European FP7 ESPaCE program, we provide the positions of Mars, Phobos, and Deimos taken with the US Naval Observatory 61-inch astrometric reflector and 26-inch refractor from 1967 to 1997. Methods. Four hundred twenty five astrophotographic plates were measured with the digitizer of the Royal Observatory of Belgium and reduced through an optimal process that includes image, instrumental, and spherical corrections using the UCAC4 catalog to provide the most accurate equatorial (RA, Dec) positions. Results. We compared the observed positions of the planet Mars and its satellites with the theoretical positions from INPOP13c and DE430 planetary ephemerides and from NOE MarsSatV1_0 and MAR097 satellite ephemerides. The rms residuals in RA and Dec of one position are less than 62 mas or about 20 km at the opposition of Mars. The rms intersatellite residuals in RA and Dec of one position are less than 40 mas or about 13 km at Mars. This accuracy is comparable to the most recent CCD observations. We also fitted the NOE model to the new computed positions and compared the orbital evolution of Phobos and Deimos with those derived from the same model, but only fitted to spacecraft data. Our results show that astrophotographic plate data can now compete with those of old spacecraft

Mars moon ephemerides after 14 years of Mars Express data

The Mars Express (MEX) mission has been successfully operated around Mars since 2004. Among many results, MEX has provided some of the most accurate astrometric data of the two Mars moons, Phobos and Deimos. We present new ephemerides of the Mars moons benefitting from all previously published astrometric data to the most recent MEX SRC data. Observations from 1877 until 2018 and including spacecraft measurements from Mariner 9 to MEX were included. Assuming a homogeneous interior, we fitted the forced libration amplitude of Phobos simultaneously with the Martian tidal k2∕Q ratio and the initial state of the moons. Our solution of the physical libration 1.09 ± 0.01 degrees deviates notably from the homogeneous solution. Considering the very low error bar, however, this may essentially suggest the necessity to consider higher order harmonics with an improved rotation model in the future. While most data could be successfully fitted, we found a disagreement between the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and the Mars Express astrometric data at the kilometer level, probably associated with a biased phase correction. The current solution precision is expected at the level of a few hundred meters for Phobos and several hundred meters for Deimos for the coming years. The real accuracy of our new ephemerides will have to be confirmed by comparison with independent observational means

VizieR Online Data Catalog: Mars moon ephemerides for 14yrs Mars Express data (Lainey+, 2021)

Table 2: Mean (ν) and standard deviation (σ) on separation s and position angle p (multiplied by the separation) in seconds of degrees for each satellite. N is the number of observations by satellite (one number per coordinate). The year appearing next to each observatory name corresponds to the observed Mars opposition. Table 3: Mean (ν) and standard deviation (σ) on right ascension and declination in seconds of degrees for each satellite. }N} is the number of observations by satellite. Table 4: Mean (ν) and standard deviation (σ) on right ascension and declination for each satellite. Both angles are multiplied by the distance spacecraft-moon to obtain kilometers. }N} is the number of observations by satellite. In the Pasewaldt et al. (2015) publication positions of Phobos have been determined using control point (CP) and/or limb point (LF) measurements. The former are based on the satellite's control network, a set of identifiable surface features well-distributed over the body's surface and defining its reference system. Recent MEX SRC measurements have been distinguished into observations made during linear and non-linear pointing variations. If the observations' pre-fit residuals deviated by more than three sigma from the mean value, they have been additionally categorised as an outlier. In case of only a few outliers it could not be clarified whether they have been related to non-linear variations in pointing or not. Some measurements are based on fits of the shape model-derived limb to only very short limb point arcs in the image (see also subsection 3.2.1). Table 5: Mean (ν) and standard deviation (σ) on sample and line in pixel and kilometer for each satellite. }N} is the number of observations by satellite. MRO (single) gathers data where only one moon was observable at a time. Table 6: Initial conditions and related uncertainties of Phobos and Deimos in the ICRF after fit at initial epoch J2000 (Julian day 2451545.0). Units are }km} and }km/sec}. All digits have been kept for reproducibility of our results. (5 data files)

Interobserver reliability of rheumatologists performing musculoskeletal ultrasonography: results from a EULAR "Train the trainers" course

Objective: To evaluate the interobserver reliability among 14 experts in musculoskeletal ultrasonography (US) and to determine the overall agreement about the US results compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which served as the imaging "gold standard". Methods: The clinically dominant joint regions (shoulder, knee, ankle/toe, wrist/finger) of four patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases were ultrasonographically examined by 14 experts. US results were compared with MRI. Overall agreements, sensitivities, specificities, and interobserver reliabilities were assessed. Results: Taking an agreement in US examination of 10 out of 14 experts into account, the overall κ for all examined joints was 0.76. Calculations for each joint region showed high κ values for the knee (1), moderate values for the shoulder (0.76) and hand/finger (0.59), and low agreement for ankle/toe joints (0.28). κ Values for bone lesions, bursitis, and tendon tears were high (κ = 1). Relatively good agreement for most US findings, compared with MRI, was found for the shoulder (overall agreement 81%, sensitivity 76%, specificity 89%) and knee joint (overall agreement 88%, sensitivity 91%, specificity 88%). Sensitivities were lower for wrist/finger (overall agreement 73%, sensitivity 66%, specificity 88%) and ankle/toe joints (overall agreement 82%, sensitivity 61%, specificity 92%). Conclusion: Interobserver reliabilities, sensitivities, and specificities in comparison with MRI were moderate to good. Further standardisation of US scanning techniques and definitions of different pathological US lesions are necessary to increase the interobserver agreement in musculoskeletal US

Interobserver reliability of rheumatologists performing musculoskeletal ultrasonography: results from a EULAR "Train the trainers" course

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the interobserver reliability among 14 experts in musculoskeletal ultrasonography (US) and to determine the overall agreement about the US results compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which served as the imaging "gold standard". METHODS: The clinically dominant joint regions (shoulder, knee, ankle/toe, wrist/finger) of four patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases were ultrasonographically examined by 14 experts. US results were compared with MRI. Overall agreements, sensitivities, specificities, and interobserver reliabilities were assessed. RESULTS: Taking an agreement in US examination of 10 out of 14 experts into account, the overall kappa for all examined joints was 0.76. Calculations for each joint region showed high kappa values for the knee (1), moderate values for the shoulder (0.76) and hand/finger (0.59), and low agreement for ankle/toe joints (0.28). kappa Values for bone lesions, bursitis, and tendon tears were high (kappa = 1). Relatively good agreement for most US findings, compared with MRI, was found for the shoulder (overall agreement 81%, sensitivity 76%, specificity 89%) and knee joint (overall agreement 88%, sensitivity 91%, specificity 88%). Sensitivities were lower for wrist/finger (overall agreement 73%, sensitivity 66%, specificity 88%) and ankle/toe joints (overall agreement 82%, sensitivity 61%, specificity 92%). CONCLUSION: Interobserver reliabilities, sensitivities, and specificities in comparison with MRI were moderate to good. Further standardisation of US scanning techniques and definitions of different pathological US lesions are necessary to increase the interobserver agreement in musculoskeletal US