Testing high volatility expectation trades on macroeconomic and political events of 2016

Trading volatility is a challenge to every speculating trader. Rather than prediction whether the price of a certain asset will move upwards or downwards, a trader who seeks to trade volatility, is concerned with how much movement in any direction will occur. Recognizing the difficulty on obtaining return with the most common volatility investment solutions (ETF’s, CFD’s and futures), one seeks to test an alternative strategy, without being exposed to high levels of risk. Using data from May through December of 2016, on a back-testing basis, it examines the relative performance of speculation strategies with options, namely the high volatility expectation strategies. Specifically, using three different equity indices, one evaluates the daily returns form the strategies that include long strangle, long straddle and short butterfly spread with calls, when applied on the past data of two political and macro-economic events of 2016: the United Kingdom Referendum and the United States presidential elections. This thesis proves, that it would have been possible to gain with the volatility occurred on the events of 2016, applying speculation strategies with options, through the usage of real past data.A negociação de volatilidade é um corrente desafio para todos os traders de activos financeiros. No lugar de prever se o preço de um determinado activo se irá valorizar ou desvalorizar, um "trader" de volatilidade procura a quantidade em que o activo se poderá mover em qualquer direcção. Reconhecendo a dificuldade dos investidores de retalho, em obter retorno com as soluções de investimento em volatilidade mais comuns (como ETF's, CFD's e contratos de futuros), procuramos testar estratégias alternativas, com níveis de exposição ao risco, mais reduzidos. Usando dados de mercado desde maio a dezembro de 2016, aplicando um modelo de "back-testing", foram aplicados testes ao desempenho relativo de estratégias de especulação com opções, nomeadamente as estratégias de espectativa de alta volatilidade. Concretamente, através do uso de três índices de ações diferentes, avaliamos os retornos diários das seguintes estratégias: "long straddle", "long strangle" e "short butterfly spread with calls". As estratégias serão aplicadas em dados de mercado durante os eventos políticos e macro-económicos de 2016: o referendo do Reino Unido e as eleições presidenciais dos Estados Unidos da América. Esta tese comprova que teria sido possível obter ganhos com a volatilidade ocorrida nos eventos de 2016, aplicando estratégias de especulação com opções, através do uso de dados passados

Characterisation of microbial attack on archaeological bone

As part of an EU funded project to investigate the factors influencing bone preservation in the archaeological record, more than 250 bones from 41 archaeological sites in five countries spanning four climatic regions were studied for diagenetic alteration. Sites were selected to cover a range of environmental conditions and archaeological contexts. Microscopic and physical (mercury intrusion porosimetry) analyses of these bones revealed that the majority (68%) had suffered microbial attack. Furthermore, significant differences were found between animal and human bone in both the state of preservation and the type of microbial attack present. These differences in preservation might result from differences in early taphonomy of the bones. © 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Evaluation of a quality improvement intervention to reduce anastomotic leak following right colectomy (EAGLE): pragmatic, batched stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial in 64 countries

Background Anastomotic leak affects 8 per cent of patients after right colectomy with a 10-fold increased risk of postoperative death. The EAGLE study aimed to develop and test whether an international, standardized quality improvement intervention could reduce anastomotic leaks. Methods The internationally intended protocol, iteratively co-developed by a multistage Delphi process, comprised an online educational module introducing risk stratification, an intraoperative checklist, and harmonized surgical techniques. Clusters (hospital teams) were randomized to one of three arms with varied sequences of intervention/data collection by a derived stepped-wedge batch design (at least 18 hospital teams per batch). Patients were blinded to the study allocation. Low- and middle-income country enrolment was encouraged. The primary outcome (assessed by intention to treat) was anastomotic leak rate, and subgroup analyses by module completion (at least 80 per cent of surgeons, high engagement; less than 50 per cent, low engagement) were preplanned. Results A total 355 hospital teams registered, with 332 from 64 countries (39.2 per cent low and middle income) included in the final analysis. The online modules were completed by half of the surgeons (2143 of 4411). The primary analysis included 3039 of the 3268 patients recruited (206 patients had no anastomosis and 23 were lost to follow-up), with anastomotic leaks arising before and after the intervention in 10.1 and 9.6 per cent respectively (adjusted OR 0.87, 95 per cent c.i. 0.59 to 1.30; P = 0.498). The proportion of surgeons completing the educational modules was an influence: the leak rate decreased from 12.2 per cent (61 of 500) before intervention to 5.1 per cent (24 of 473) after intervention in high-engagement centres (adjusted OR 0.36, 0.20 to 0.64; P < 0.001), but this was not observed in low-engagement hospitals (8.3 per cent (59 of 714) and 13.8 per cent (61 of 443) respectively; adjusted OR 2.09, 1.31 to 3.31). Conclusion Completion of globally available digital training by engaged teams can alter anastomotic leak rates. Registration number: NCT04270721 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov)

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field