Peru SANBASUR Rural Sanitation Financing Mechanisms

human development, water, sanitation

Rural Sanitation in Southern Africa: A Focus on Institutions and Actors

human development, water, sanitation

UA3/3/1 Commencement Invitation

Graduation invitation for the Glasgow School for Practical Nurses, includes class roster

Germline genetic variation in prostate susceptibility does not predict outcomes in the chemoprevention trials PCPT and SELECT

Background The development of prostate cancer can be influenced by genetic and environmental factors. Numerous germline SNPs influence prostate cancer susceptibility. The functional pathways in which these SNPs increase prostate cancer susceptibility are unknown. Finasteride is currently not being used routinely as a chemoprevention agent but the long term outcomes of the PCPT trial are awaited. The outcomes of the SELECT trial have not recommended the use of chemoprevention in preventing prostate cancer. This study investigated whether germline risk SNPs could be used to predict outcomes in the PCPT and SELECT trial. Methods Genotyping was performed in European men entered into the PCPT trial (n = 2434) and SELECT (n = 4885). Next generation genotyping was performed using Affymetrix® Eureka™ Genotyping protocols. Logistic regression models were used to test the association of risk scores and the outcomes in the PCPT and SELECT trials. Results Of the 100 SNPs, 98 designed successfully and genotyping was validated for samples genotyped on other platforms. A number of SNPs predicted for aggressive disease in both trials. Men with a higher polygenic score are more likely to develop prostate cancer in both trials, but the score did not predict for other outcomes in the trial. Conclusion Men with a higher polygenic risk score are more likely to develop prostate cancer. There were no interactions of these germline risk SNPs and the chemoprevention agents in the SELECT and PCPT trials

On Link Estimation in Dense RPL Deployments

The Internet of Things vision foresees billions of devices to connect the physical world to the digital world. Sensing applications such as structural health monitoring, surveillance or smart buildings employ multi-hop wireless networks with high density to attain sufficient area coverage. Such applications need networking stacks and routing protocols that can scale with network size and density while remaining energy-efficient and lightweight. To this end, the IETF RoLL working group has designed the IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL). This paper discusses the problems of link quality estimation and neighbor management policies when it comes to handling high densities. We implement and evaluate different neighbor management policies and link probing techniques in Contiki’s RPL implementation. We report on our experience with a 100-node testbed with average 40-degree density. We show the sensitivity of high density routing with respect to cache sizes and routing metric initialization. Finally, we devise guidelines for design and implementation of density-scalable routing protocols

Systems Engineering Leading Indicators Guide, Version 1.0

The Systems Engineering Leading Indicators guide set reflects the initial subset of possible indicators that were considered to be the highest priority for evaluating effectiveness before the fact. A leading indicator is a measure for evaluating the effectiveness of a how a specific activity is applied on a program in a manner that provides information about impacts that are likely to affect the system performance objectives. A leading indicator may be an individual measure, or collection of measures, that are predictive of future system performance before the performance is realized. Leading indicators aid leadership in delivering value to customers and end users, while assisting in taking interventions and actions to avoid rework and wasted effort. The Systems Engineering Leading Indicators Guide was initiated as a result of the June 2004 Air Force/LAI Workshop on Systems Engineering for Robustness, this guide supports systems engineering revitalization. Over several years, a group of industry, government, and academic stakeholders worked to define and validate a set of thirteen indicators for evaluating the effectiveness of systems engineering on a program. Released as version 1.0 in June 2007 the leading indicators provide predictive information to make informed decisions and where necessary, take preventative or corrective action during the program in a proactive manner. While the leading indicators appear similar to existing measures and often use the same base information, the difference lies in how the information is gathered, evaluated, interpreted and used to provide a forward looking perspective

Systems Engineering Leading Indicators Guide, Version 2.0

The Systems Engineering Leading Indicators Guide editorial team is pleased to announce the release of Version 2.0. Version 2.0 supersedes Version 1.0, which was released in July 2007 and was the result of a project initiated by the Lean Advancement Initiative (LAI) at MIT in cooperation with: the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), Practical Software and Systems Measurement (PSM), and the Systems Engineering Advancement Research Initiative (SEAri) at MIT. A leading indicator is a measure for evaluating the effectiveness of how a specific project activity is likely to affect system performance objectives. A leading indicator may be an individual measure or a collection of measures and associated analysis that is predictive of future systems engineering performance. Systems engineering performance itself could be an indicator of future project execution and system performance. Leading indicators aid leadership in delivering value to customers and end users and help identify interventions and actions to avoid rework and wasted effort. Conventional measures provide status and historical information. Leading indicators use an approach that draws on trend information to allow for predictive analysis. By analyzing trends, predictions can be forecast on the outcomes of certain activities. Trends are analyzed for insight into both the entity being measured and potential impacts to other entities. This provides leaders with the data they need to make informed decisions and where necessary, take preventative or corrective action during the program in a proactive manner. Version 2.0 guide adds five new leading indicators to the previous 13 for a new total of 18 indicators. The guide addresses feedback from users of the previous version of the guide, as well as lessons learned from implementation and industry workshops. The document format has been improved for usability, and several new appendices provide application information and techniques for determining correlations of indicators. Tailoring of the guide for effective use is encouraged. Additional collaborating organizations involved in Version 2.0 include the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), US Department of Defense Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC), and National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) Systems Engineering Division (SED). Many leading measurement and systems engineering experts from government, industry, and academia volunteered their time to work on this initiative

Analytical Solutions of Klein-Gordon Equation with Position-Dependent Mass for q-Parameter Poschl-Teller potential

The energy eigenvalues and the corresponding eigenfunctions of the one-dimensional Klein-Gordon equation with q-parameter Poschl-Teller potential are analytically obtained within the position-dependent mass formalism. The parametric generalization of the Nikiforov-Uvarov method is used in the calculations by choosing a mass distribution.Comment: 10 page