8 research outputs found
UniProt-GOA: A central resource for data integration and GO annotation
Abstract. The Gene Ontolog
Error-analysis and comparison to analytical models of numerical waveforms produced by the NRAR Collaboration
The Numerical-Relativity-Analytical-Relativity (NRAR) collaboration is a
joint effort between members of the numerical relativity, analytical relativity
and gravitational-wave data analysis communities. The goal of the NRAR
collaboration is to produce numerical-relativity simulations of compact
binaries and use them to develop accurate analytical templates for the
LIGO/Virgo Collaboration to use in detecting gravitational-wave signals and
extracting astrophysical information from them. We describe the results of the
first stage of the NRAR project, which focused on producing an initial set of
numerical waveforms from binary black holes with moderate mass ratios and
spins, as well as one non-spinning binary configuration which has a mass ratio
of 10. All of the numerical waveforms are analysed in a uniform and consistent
manner, with numerical errors evaluated using an analysis code created by
members of the NRAR collaboration. We compare previously-calibrated,
non-precessing analytical waveforms, notably the effective-one-body (EOB) and
phenomenological template families, to the newly-produced numerical waveforms.
We find that when the binary's total mass is ~100-200 solar masses, current EOB
and phenomenological models of spinning, non-precessing binary waveforms have
overlaps above 99% (for advanced LIGO) with all of the non-precessing-binary
numerical waveforms with mass ratios <= 4, when maximizing over binary
parameters. This implies that the loss of event rate due to modelling error is
below 3%. Moreover, the non-spinning EOB waveforms previously calibrated to
five non-spinning waveforms with mass ratio smaller than 6 have overlaps above
99.7% with the numerical waveform with a mass ratio of 10, without even
maximizing on the binary parameters.Comment: 51 pages, 10 figures; published versio
Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.
BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca
Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK
Background
A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials.
Methods
This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674.
Findings
Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation.
Interpretation
ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials
Reviews of Books
WANG ZHENPING. Ambassadors from the Islands of Immortals: China-Japan Relations in the Han-Tang Period. Honolulu: Association for Asian Studies and University of Hawaii Press, 2005. Pp. xiii, 387. 39.95 (US). Reviewed by Jeremy Black
GIROLAMO ARNALDI. Italy and Its Invaders, trans. Antony Shugaar. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 2005. Pp. ix, 229. 35.00 (US). Reviewed by Virginia Martin
DAVID CROUGH. The Birth of Nobility: Constructing Aristocracy in England and France, 900-1300. London and New York: Pearson Longman, 2005. Pp. xiii, 361. £36.99, paper. Reviewed by Pauline Stafford
ANGELO FORTE, RICHARD ORAM, and FREDERIK PEDERSEN. Viking Empires. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Pp. xiv, 447. 140.00 (US). Reviewed by Hugh M. Thomas
FRANCES STONOR SAUNDERS. The Devil's Broker: Seeking Gold, God, and Glory in 14th Century Italy. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2005. Pp. xviii, 366. 35.00 (US). Reviewed by Charles J. Halperin
JAMES MCDERMOTT. England and the Spanish Armada: The Necessary Quarrel. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2005. Pp. xvi, 411. 65.00 (US). Reviewed by Stephen Constantine
JENNY HALE PULSIPHER. Subjects Unto the Same King: Indians, English, and the Contest for Authority in Colonial New England. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005; dist. Toronto: Scholarly Book Services. Pp. 361. 34.95 (US). Reviewed by Kenneth Morgan
STEPHEN CONWAY. War, State, and Society in Mid-Eighteenth-Century Britain and Ireland. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Pp. vi, 346. 27.95 (US). Reviewed by Dane Kennedy
JONATHAN R. DULL. The French Navy and the Seven Years' War. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 2005. Pp. xiii, 445. 39.95 (CDN). Reviewed by George Baer
OLIVER MARSHALL. English, Irish, and Irish-American Pioneer Settlers in Nineteenth- Century Brazil. Oxford: Centre for Brazilian Studies, University of Oxford, 2005. Pp. xii, 323. £20.00, paper. Reviewed by Marshall C. Eakin
RANDOLF G. S. COOPER. The Anglo-Maratha Campaigns and the Contest for India: The Struggle for Control of the South Asian Military Economy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Pp. xvii, 437. 90.00 (US). Reviewed by Nicholas Crafts
TAN TAI YONG. The Garrison State: The Military, Government, and Society in Colonial Punjab, 1849-1947. New Delhi and Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2005. Pp. 333. 49.95 (US). Reviewed by Lothar Höbelt
JOHN M. CARROLL. Edge of Empires: Chinese Elites and British Colonials in Hong Kong. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 2005. Pp. xii, 260. 22.95 (US), paper. Reviewed by Olivia Patricia Dickason
ELIZABETH BUETTNER. Empire Families: Britons and Late Imperial India.. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Pp. xii, 310. 24.95 (US), paper. Reviewed by John M. MacKenzie
MIKE HUGGINS. The Victorians and Sport. London and New York: Hambledon and London, 2004; dist. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Pp. xi, 318. 45.00 (CDN). Reviewed by John L. Gordon, Jr.
STEFAN AUGUST LUTGENAU, ed. Paul Esterhdzy, 1901-1989: Ein Leben im Zeitalter der Extreme. Innsbruck: Studien Verlag, 2005. Pp. 196. €19.00. Reviewed by Günter Bischof
MICHAEL DOORLEY. Irish-American Diaspora Nationalism: The Friends of Irish Freedom, 1916-1935. Dublin and Portland: Four Courts Press, 2005. Pp. 223. 29.95 (CDN), paper. Reviewed by John Price
ELIZABETH BORGWARDT. A New Deal for the World: America's Vision for Human Rights. Cambridge, MA and London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2005. Pp. 437. 35.00 (US). Reviewed by Warren I. Cohen
JUSTUS D. DOKNKCKE and MARK A. STOLER. Debating Franklin D. Roosevelt's Foreign Policies, 1933-1945. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. Pp. vi, 238. 65.00 (US), cloth; 38.00 (US). Reviewed by Andrew J. Crozier
RICHARD BREITMAN, NORMAN J. W. GODA, TIMOTHY NAFTALI, and ROBERT WOLFE. US Intelligence and the Nazis. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Pp. 495. 49.95 (US). Reviewed by John-Paul Himka
DOUGLAS E. DELANEY. The Soldiers' General: Bert Hoffmeister at War. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2005. Pp. xvi, 299. 19.95 (US), paper. Reviewed by Terrence Cole
ARIEH J. KOCHAVI. Confronting Captivity: Britain and the United States and Their POWs in Nazi Germany. Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 2005; dist. Toronto: Scholarly Book Services. Pp. x, 382. 29.95 (US). Reviewed by Akira Iriye
DAVID MONOD. Settling Scores: German Music, Denazification, and the Americans, 1945-1953. Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 2005; dist. Toronto: Scholarly Book Services. Pp. xiv, 325. 39.95 (US). Reviewed by Steve I. Levine
AMY KNIGHT. How the Cold War Began: The Gouzenko Affair and the Hunt for Soviet Spies. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2005. Pp. ix, 358. 58.00 (CDN). Reviewed by Anders Stephanson
KENNETH P. WERRELL. Sabres over MiG Alley: The F-86 and the Battle for Air Superiority in Korea. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2005. Pp. x, 318. 60.00 (US). Reviewed by Andrei Lankov
CHRISTOPHER A. PREBLE. John F. Kennedy and the Missile Gap. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2004. Pp. xi, 244. 49.95 (AUS), paper. Reviewed by Nicholas Tarling
GARETH PORTER. Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam. Berkeley