Determination of the Form Factors for the Decay B0 --> D*-l+nu_l and of the CKM Matrix Element |Vcb|

We present a combined measurement of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix element $|V_{cb}|$ and of the parameters $\rho^2$, $R_1$, and $R_2$, which fully characterize the form factors of the $B^0 \to D^{*-}\ell^{+}\nu_\ell$ decay in the framework of HQET, based on a sample of about 52,800 $B^0 \to D^{*-}\ell^{+}\nu_\ell$ decays recorded by the BABAR detector. The kinematical information of the fully reconstructed decay is used to extract the following values for the parameters (where the first errors are statistical and the second systematic): $\rho^2 = 1.156 \pm 0.094 \pm 0.028$, $R_1 = 1.329 \pm 0.131 \pm 0.044$, $R_2 = 0.859 \pm 0.077 \pm 0.022$, $\mathcal{F}(1)|V_{cb}| = (35.03 \pm 0.39 \pm 1.15) \times 10^{-3}$. By combining these measurements with the previous BABAR measurements of the form factors which employs a different technique on a partial sample of the data, we improve the statistical accuracy of the measurement, obtaining: $\rho^2 = 1.179 \pm 0.048 \pm 0.028, R_1 = 1.417 \pm 0.061 \pm 0.044, R_2 = 0.836 \pm 0.037 \pm 0.022,$ and $\mathcal{F}(1)|V_{cb}| = (34.68 \pm 0.32 \pm 1.15) \times 10^{-3}.$ Using the lattice calculations for the axial form factor $\mathcal{F}(1)$, we extract $|V_{cb}| =(37.74 \pm 0.35 \pm 1.25 \pm ^{1.23}_{1.44}) \times 10^{-3}$, where the third error is due to the uncertainty in $\mathcal{F}(1)$

Study of the Exclusive Initial-State Radiation Production of the DDˉD \bar D System

A study of exclusive production of the $D \bar D$ system through initial-state r adiation is performed in a search for charmonium states, where $D=D^0$ or $D^+$. The $D^0$ mesons are reconstructed in the $D^0 \to K^- \pi^+$, $D^0 \to K^- \pi^+ \pi^0$, and $D^0 \to K^- \pi^+ \pi^+ \pi^-$ decay modes. The $D^+$ is reconstructed through the $D^+ \to K^- \pi^+ \pi^+$ decay mode. The analysis makes use of an integrated luminosity of 288.5 fb$^{-1}$ collected by the BaBar experiment. The $D \bar D$ mass spectrum shows a clear $\psi(3770)$ signal. Further structures appear in the 3.9 and 4.1 GeV/$c^2$ regions. No evidence is found for Y(4260) decays to $D \bar D$, implying an up per limit \frac{\BR(Y(4260)\to D \bar D)}{\BR(Y(4260)\to J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^-)} < 7.6 (95 % confidence level)

EuFe2_2As2_2 under high pressure: an antiferromagnetic bulk superconductor

We report the ac magnetic susceptibility $\chi_{ac}$ and resistivity $\rho$ measurements of EuFe$_2$As$_2$ under high pressure $P$. By observing nearly 100% superconducting shielding and zero resistivity at $P$ = 28 kbar, we establish that $P$-induced superconductivity occurs at $T_c \sim$~30 K in EuFe$_2$As$_2$. $\rho$ shows an anomalous nearly linear temperature dependence from room temperature down to $T_c$ at the same $P$. $\chi_{ac}$ indicates that an antiferromagnetic order of Eu$^{2+}$ moments with $T_N \sim$~20 K persists in the superconducting phase. The temperature dependence of the upper critical field is also determined.Comment: To appear in J. Phys. Soc. Jpn., Vol. 78 No.

Search for decays of B-0 -> e(+)e(-), B-0 -> mu(+)mu(-), B-0 -> e(+/-)mu(-/+)

We present a search for the decays B-0 -> e(+)e(-), B-0 ->mu(+)mu(-), and B-0 -> e(+/-)mu(-/+) in data collected at the Upsilon(4S) resonance with the BABAR detector at the SLAC B Factory. Using a data set of 111 fb(-1), we find no evidence for a signal in any of the three channels investigated and set the following branching fraction upper limits at the 90% confidence level: B(B-0 -> e(+)e(-))mu(+)mu(-)) e(+/-)mu(-/+))< 18x10(-8)

Measurements of Branching Fractions, Polarizations, and Direct CP-Violation Asymmetries in B→ρK∗ and B→f0(980)K∗ Decays

We report searches for B -meson decays to the charmless final states ρ K ∗ and f 0 ( 980 ) K ∗ with a sample of 232 × 10 6 B ¯¯¯ B pairs collected with the BABAR detector at the PEP-II e + e − collider. We measure in units of 10 − 6 the following branching fractions, where the first error quoted is statistical and the second systematic, or upper limits are given at the 90% confidence level : B ( B + → ρ 0 K * + ) < 6.1 , B ( B + → ρ + K * 0 ) = 9.6 ± 1.7 ± 1.5 , B ( B 0 → ρ − K * + ) < 12.0 , B ( B 0 → ρ 0 K * 0 ) = 5.6 ± 0.9 ± 1.3 , B ( B + → f 0 ( 980 ) K * + ) = 5.2 ± 1.2 ± 0.5 , and B ( B 0 → f 0 ( 980 ) K * 0 ) < 4.3 . For the significant modes, we also measure the fraction of longitudinal polarization and the charge asymmetry: f L ( B + → ρ + K * 0 ) = 0.52 ± 0.10 ± 0.04 , f L ( B 0 → ρ 0 K * 0 ) = 0.57 ± 0.09 ± 0.08 , A C P ( B + → ρ + K * 0 ) = − 0.01 ± 0.16 ± 0.02 , A C P ( B 0 → ρ 0 K * 0 ) = 0.09 ± 0.19 ± 0.02 , and A C P ( B + → f 0 ( 980 ) K * + ) = − 0.34 ± 0.21 ± 0.03

Salami-Tactics: when is it time for a major cut after multiple minor amputations?

Introduction Repetitive minor amputations carry the concomitant risks of multiple surgical procedures, major amputations have physical and economical major drawbacks. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether there is a distinct number of minor amputations predicting a major amputation in the same leg and to determine risk factors for major amputation in multiple minor amputations. Materials and methods A retrospective chart review including 429 patients with 534 index minor amputations between 07/1984 and 06/2019 was conducted. Patient demographics and clinical data including number and level of re-amputations were extracted from medical records and statistically analyzed. Results 290 legs (54.3%) had one or multiple re-amputations after index minor amputation. 89 (16.7%) legs needed major amputation during follow up. Major amputation was performed at a mean of 32.5 (range 0 – 275.2) months after index minor amputation. No particular re-amputation demonstrated statistically significant elevated odds ratio (a.) to be a major amputation compared to the preceding amputation and (b.) to lead to a major amputation at any point during follow up. Stepwise multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed minor re-amputation within 90 days (HR 3.8, 95% CI 2.0-7.3, p <0.001) as the only risk factor for major amputation if at least one re-amputation had to be performed. Conclusions There is no distinct number of prior minor amputations in one leg that would justify a major amputation on its own. If a re-amputation has to be done, the timepoint needs to be considered as re-amputations within 90 days carry a fourfold risk for major amputation. Level of evidence Retrospective comparative study (Level III). © 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG.ISSN:0936-8051ISSN:0344-8444ISSN:1434-391