Additional file 1: of TISU: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, as first treatment option, compared with direct progression to ureteroscopic treatment, for ureteric stones: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Figure 3 SPIRIT 2013 Checklist: Recommended items to address in a clinical trial protocol and related documents. (DOC 120 kb

Giant Surface Conductivity Enhancement in a Carbon Nanotube Composite by Ultraviolet Light Exposure

Carbon nanotube composites are lightweight, multifunctional materials with readily adjustable mechanical and electrical propertiesrelevant to the aerospace, automotive, and sporting goods industries as high-performance structural materials. Here, we combine well-established and newly developed characterization techniques to demonstrate that ultraviolet (UV) light exposure provides a controllable means to enhance the electrical conductivity of the surface of a commercial carbon nanotube–epoxy composite by over 5 orders of magnitude. Our observations, combined with theory and simulations, reveal that the increase in conductivity is due to the formation of a concentrated layer of nanotubes on the composite surface. Our model implies that contacts between nanotube-rich microdomains dominate the conductivity of this layer at low UV dose, while tube–tube transport dominates at high UV dose. Further, we use this model to predictably pattern conductive traces with a UV laser, providing a facile approach for direct integration of lightweight conductors on nanocomposite surfaces

Principal component analysis yielding 3 rotated components <i>(N = 100)</i>.

<p>Factor loadings >0.5 as significant.</p>a<p>k values were obtained by a hyperbolic decay function and log transformed.</p>b<p>IMT and DMT scores were calculated as the ratio of commission errors to correct detections.</p><p> <i>DDT: Delay Discounting Task, IMT: Immediate Memory Task, DMT: Delayed Memory Task, SSRT: Stop Signal Reaction Time, BIS-11: Barratt Impulsiveness Scale.</i></p

Correlation between impulsive choice and action in humans.

<p>In humans (n = 100), there was no correlation between impulsive choice (log DDT k value) and impulsive action measured as the ratio of commission errors to correct detections in (A) IMT (r = .11) and (B) DMT (r = .16). Within the IMT/DMT (C) there was a correlation between the ratio of commission errors to correct detections in the IMT and DMT (r = .64).</p

Correlation between impulsive choice and action after pharmacological manipulations in rats.

<p>In rats (n = 22), there was no correlation between the effects of (A) amphetamine (0.5 mg/kg, r = .22) and (B) atomoxetine (1 mg/kg, r = .21) on the two impulsivity measures: the Δ indifference point ( = drug challenge minus vehicle) of the delayed reward task and the Δ premature responses ( = drug challenge minus vehicle) in the 5-choice serial reaction time task did not correlate.</p

Correlation between impulsive choice and action in rats.

<p>In rats (n = 22), there was no correlation between impulsive action, based on premature responses in the 5-CSRTT, and impulsive choice, based on (A) the indifference point (r = −.22) or (B) the log k-value (r = .09) in the DRT. Within the 5-CSRTT (C) there was a correlation (r = .77) between impulsive action with a standard inter trial interval (ITI 5 s) and lengthened inter trial interval (ITI 7 s).</p

Pharmacological manipulation of impulsive choice and action in rats.

<p>In rats (n = 22), the preference for the large reward in the DRT decreased with increasing delays (A) and amphetamine (0.5 mg/kg) decreased impulsive choice in rats, whereas atomoxetine (1 mg/kg) increased impulsive choice. In the 5-CSRTT (B), amphetamine increased premature responding, whereas atomoxetine decreased the number of premature responses. *p<0.05, **p<0.001 compared to vehicle.</p