Experimental and Numerical Investigations on Dynamic Mechanical Properties of TPMS Structures

Triply Periodic Minimal Surface (TPMS) lattice structures have been of increasing interest due to their light weighting, enhanced mechanical properties, and energy absorption characteristics for automotive and biomedical applications. With the advent of additive manufacturing and geometric modeling software, TPMS lattices with complex geometries can be realized. In this work, TPMS lattice structures were fabricated with PLA using fused filament fabrication (FFF) and their dynamic properties are characterized through drop tower experiments. Although lightweight TPMS lattices are beneficial for their impact absorption capability, most of the existing works are limited to quasi-static compression, and dynamic impact tests are rarely performed. The current study investigates the stress-strain and energy absorption characteristics of TPMS lattices through drop tower testing and numerical modeling. Finite element modeling for TPMS lattices is carried out to validate the experimental responses. The mechanical properties, deformation, and failure mechanisms of TPMS lattices under dynamic impact are summarized for potential future applications.Mechanical Engineerin

Crop Updates 2001 - Pulses

This session covers sixty six papers from different authors: 1. Pulse Industry Highlights 2. CONTRIBUTORS 3. BACKGROUND 4. SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS RESULTS 2000 REGIONAL ROUNDUP 5. Northern agricultural Region, M. Harries, W. O’Neill, Agriculture Western Australia 6. Central Agricultural Region, R. French, Agriculture Western Australia 7. Great Southern and Lakes,N. Brandon, N. Runciman and S. White,Agriculture Western Australia 8. Esperance, M. Seymour, Agriculture Western Australia PULSE PRODUCTION AGRONOMY AND GENETIC IMPROVEMENT Faba bean: 9. germplasm evaluation, 10. Variety evaluation, 11. Sowing rate and time of sowing, Variation in root morphology, P. White and T. Pope, Agriculture Western Australia Desi chickpea: 12. Breeding highlights, 13. Variety evaluation, 14. Seed discolouration, C. Veitch, Agriculture Western Australia, 15. Performance under drought stress, J. Berger, N.C. Turner, CLIMA and CSIRO Plant Industry , K.H.M. Siddique, Agriculture Western Australia & CLIMA, 16. Resistance to chilling at flowering and to budworm, H. Clarke, CLIMA, 17. Effect of row spacing, sowing rate and orientation on growth and seed yield, G. Riethmuller, W. MacLeod, Agriculture Western Australia Kabuli chickpea, 18. variety and germplasm evaluation, 19. Premium quality kabuli chickpea development in the ORIA, 20. International screening for ascochyta blight resistance, 21. Evaluation of ascochyta resistant germplasm in Australia Field pea 22. Breeding highlights, 23. Variety evaluation, 24. Agronomic and varietal effects on seed quality, R. French, J. Millar and T.N. Khan, Agriculture Western Australia, 25. Seed yield and quality in the Great Southern, N. Brandon, R. Beermier, N. Brown and S. White,Agriculture Western Australia, 26. Herbicide tolerance of new varieties and lines, Esperance region, M. Seymour,Agriculture Western Australia, 27. Mullewa, H. Dhammu and T. Piper, D. Nicholson, M. D\u27Antuono, Agriculture Western Australia 28. Herbicide tolerance of Cooke on marginal soil, H. Dhammu and T. Piper, D.Nicholson, M. D\u27Antuono, Agriculture Western Australia, 29. Post emergent weed control using Raptor® Lentil 30. Variety evaluation 31. Evaluation of advanced breeding lines from CIPAL 32. Elite germplasm from ICARDA and ACIAR project, K. Regan,Agriculture Western Australia, J. Clements and K.H.M. Siddique, Agriculture Western Australia and CLIMA, C. Francis CLIMA 33. Single row evaluation of F3/F4 breeding lines, K. Regan,Agriculture Western Australia, J. Clements, Agriculture Western Australia and CLIMA Vetch 34. Germplasm evaluation 35. Time of sowing x fungicide, M. Seymour, Agriculture Western Australia 36. Tolerance to post emergent application of Sniper® M. Seymour, Agriculture Western Australia 37. Herbicide tolerance Narbon bean 38. Germplasm evaluation, M. Seymour, Agriculture Western Australia 39. Herbicide tolerance, M. Seymour, Agriculture Western Australia 40. Post emergent use of knockdown herbicides, M. Seymour, Agriculture Western Australia Albus lupin 41. Time of sowing, N. Brandon and R. Beermier, Agriculture Western Australia Lathyrus development 42. Field evaluation, C. Hanbury and K.H.M. Siddique, CLIMA and Agriculture Western Australia 43. Animal feeding trials, C. Hanbury and K.H.M. Siddique, Agriculture Western Australia, C. White, CSIRO, B. Mullan, Agriculture Western Australia, B. Hughes, SARDI, South Australia Species comparison 44. Time of sowing 45. Seed moisture of pulse species at harvest, G.P. Riethmuller and R.J. French Agriculture Western Australia 46.Rotational benefits of pulses on grey clay soils, N. Brandon, R. Beermier, R. Bowie, J. Warburton, Agriculture Western Australia P. Fisher, NRE, Victoria, M. Braimbridge, UWA Centre for Land Rehabilitation , F. Hoyle and W. Bowden, Agriculture Western Australia 47. Pulse species response to phosphorus and zinc, S. Lawrence, Z. Rengel, UWA, S.P. Loss, CSBP futurefarm M.D.A. Bolland, K.H.M. Siddique, W. Bowden, R. Brennan, Agriculture Western Australia 48. The effect of soil applied lime and lime pelleting on pulses, M. Seymour, Agriculture Western Australia 49. Antitranspirants 50. Mapping soils for pulses in the Great Southern, N. Brandon, P. Tille, N. Schoknecht, Agriculture Western Australia DEMONSTRATION OF PULSES IN THE FARMING SYSTEM 51. New field pea and faba bean varieties in the Great Southern 52. Harvesting methods for field pea in the Great Southern, N. Brandon, R. Beermier, M. Seymour, Agriculture Western Australia DISEASE AND PEST MANAGEMENT 53.Ascochyta blight of chickpea 54. Seed dressing and sowing depth 55. Foliar fungicide sprays 56. The ascochyta management package for 2001 57. Initiation ascochyta disease from infected stubble, J. Galloway and W. MacLeod, Agriculture Western Australia 58. Black spot of field pea 59. Ascochyta blight of chickpea 60. Ascochyta blight of faba bean 61. Pulse disease diagnostics, D. Wright and N. Burges Agriculture Western Australia Viruses in pulses 62. Virus infection causes seed discolouration and poor seed quality R. Jones and L. Latham, Agriculture Western Australia Insect pests 63. Aphid ecology in pulses, O. Edwards, J. Ridsdill-Smith and R. Horbury, CSIRO Entomology 64. Evaluation of transgenic field pea against pea weevils (Bruchus pisorum), Ms M.J. de Sousa Majer, Curtin University of Technology; N.C. Turner, CSIRO Plant Industry and D. Hardie, Agriculture Western Australia 65. Searching for markers for resistance to pea weevil, O. Byrne, CLIMA and Plant Sciences, UWA, N. Galwey, Plant Sciences, UWA, D. Hardie,Agriculture Western Australia and P. Smith, Botany, UWA 66. Improved stored grain fumigation on-farm with Phoscard®, R. Emery and E. Kostas, Agriculture Western Australia ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PUBLICATIONS BY PULSE PRODUCTIVITY PROJECT STAFF VARIETIES PRODUCED AND COMMERCIALLY RELEASE

An aminostratigraphy for the British Quaternary based on Bithynia opercula

Aminostratigraphies of Quaternary non-marine deposits in Europe have been previously based on the racemization of a single amino acid in aragonitic shells from land and freshwater molluscs. The value of analysing multiple amino acids from the opercula of the freshwater gastropod Bithynia, which are composed of calcite, has been demonstrated. The protocol used for the isolation of intra-crystalline proteins from shells has been applied to these calcitic opercula, which have been shown to more closely approximate a closed system for indigenous protein residues. Original amino acids are even preserved in bithyniid opercula from the Eocene, showing persistence of indigenous organics for over 30 million years. Geochronological data from opercula are superior to those from shells in two respects: first, in showing less natural variability, and second, in the far better preservation of the intra-crystalline proteins, possibly resulting from the greater stability of calcite. These features allow greater temporal resolution and an extension of the dating range beyond the early Middle Pleistocene. Here we provide full details of the analyses for 480 samples from 100 horizons (75 sites), ranging from Late Pliocene to modern. These show that the dating technique is applicable to the entire Quaternary. Data are provided from all the stratotypes from British stages to have yielded opercula, which are shown to be clearly separable using this revised method. Further checks on the data are provided by reference to other type-sites for different stages (including some not formally defined). Additional tests are provided by sites with independent geochronology, or which can be associated with a terrace stratigraphy or biostratigraphy. This new aminostratigraphy for the non-marine Quaternary deposits of southern Britain provides a framework for understanding the regional geological and archaeological record. Comparison with reference to sites yielding independent geochronology, in combination with other lines of evidence, allows tentative correlation with the marine oxygen isotope record

Crop Updates 2002 - Pulse Research and Industry Development in Western Australia

This session covers seventy one papers from different authors: 1. 2001 PULSE INDUSTRY HIGHLIGHTS CONTRIBUTORS BACKGROUND 2001 REGIONAL ROUNDUP 2. Northern Agricultural Region, M. Harries, Department of Agriculture 3. Central Agricultural Region, R. French and I. Pritchard, Department of Agriculture 4. Great Southern and Lakes, N. Brandon, N. Runciman and S. White, Department of Agriculture 5. Esperance Mallee, M. Seymour, Department of Agriculture PULSE PRODUCTION AGRONOMY AND GENETIC IMPROVEMENT 6. Faba bean, P. White, Department of Agriculture 7. Germplasm evaluation, P. White, M. Seymour and M. Harries, Department of Agriculture 8. Variety evaluation, P. White, M. Harries, N. Brandon and M. Seymour, Department of Agriculture 9. Sowing rate and time of sowing, P. White, N. Brandon, M. Seymour and M. Harries, Department of Agriculture 10.Use of granular inoculum in the Great Southern, N. Brandon1, J. Howieson2 and R. Yates2 1Department of Agriculture, 2Centre for Rhizobium Studies, Murdoch University 11.Tolerance to post emergent herbicides, M. Seymour and M. Harries, Department of Agriculture 12.Herbicide tolerance of new varieties, H. Dhammu and T. Piper, Department of Agriculture Desi chickpea 13. Breeding highlights, T. Khan, Department of Agriculture 14. Variety evaluation, T. Khan and K. Regan, Department of Agriculture 15. Effect of genotype and environment on seed quality, N. Suizu1 and D. Diepeveen2 1School of Public Health, Curtin University of Technology 2Department of Agriculture 16. Seed discolouration, C. Veitch and P. White, Department of Agriculture 17. Foliar application on N increases seed yield and seed protein under terminal drought, J. Palta1,2, A. Nandwal3 and N. Turner1,2 , 1CSIRO Plant Industry, 2CLIMA, the University of Western Australia, 3Department of Botany, Haryana Agric University, Hisar, India 18. Tolerance to chilling at flowering, H. Clarke, CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 19. Molecular studies of ascochyta blight disease in chickpea, G. Dwyer1, H. Loo1, T. Khan2, K. Siddique3, M. Bellgard1 and M. Jones1 ,1WA State Agricultural Biotechnology Centre and Centre for Bioinformatics and Biological Computing, Murdoch University, 2Department of Agriculture, 3CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 20. Effect of row spacing and sowing rate on seed yield, G. Riethmuller and B. MacLeod, Department of Agriculture 21. Herbicide tolerance on marginal soil types, H. Dhammu and T. Piper, Department of Agriculture 22. Kabuli chickpea, K. Regan, Department of Agriculture 23. Variety and germplasm evaluation, T. Khan and K. Regan, Department of Agriculture 24. Premium quality kabuli chickpea development in the ORIA, K. Siddique1, K. Regan2, R. Shackles2 and P. Smith2 , 1 CLIMA, The University of Western Australia, 2Department of Agriculture 25. Evaluation of ascochylta resistant germplasm from Syria and Turkey, K. Siddique1, C. Francis1 and K. Regan2, 1CLIMA, University of Western Australia 2Department of Agriculture Field pea 26. Breeding highlights, T. Khan Department of Agriculture 27. Variety evaluation, T. Khan Department of Agriculture 28. Comparing the phosphorus requirement of field pea and wheat, M. Bolland and P. White, Department of Agriculture 29. Tolerance of field pea to post emergent herbicides, M. Seymour and N. Brandon, Department of Agriculture 30. Response of new varieties to herbicides, H. Dhammu and T. Piper, Department of Agriculture 31. Lentil, K. Regan, Department of Agriculture 32. Variety evaluation, K. Regan, N. Brandon, M. Harries and M. Seymour, Department of Agriculture 33. Interstate evaluation of advanced breeding lines developed in WA, K. Regan1, K. Siddique2 and M. Materne3, 1Department of Agriculture, 2CLIMA, University of Western Australia, 3Victorian Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Agriculture Victoria 34. Evaluation of germplasm from overseas and local projects, K. Regan1, J. Clements2, K.H.M. Siddique2 and C. Francis21Department of Agriculture, 2CLIMA, University of Western Australia 35. Evaluation of breeding lines developed in WA, K. Regan1, J. Clements2, K.H.M. Siddique2 and C. Francis21Department of Agriculture, 2CLIMA, University of Western Australia 36. Productivity and yield stability in Australia and Nepal, C. Hanbury, K. Siddique and C. Francis, CLIMA, the University of Western Australia Vetch 37. Germplasm evaluation, M. Seymour1, R. Matic2 and M. Tate3, 1Department of Agriculture, 2South Australian Research and Development Institute, 3University of Adelaide, Waite Campus 38. Tolerance of common vetch to post emergent herbicides, M. Seymour and N. Brandon, Department of Agriculture Narbon bean 39. Removing narbon bean from wheat, M. Seymour, Department of Agriculture 40. Tolerance to low rates of Roundup and Sprayseed, M. Seymour, Department of Agriculture 41. Lathyrus development, C. Hanbury, CLIMA, the University of Western Australia 42. Poultry feeding trials, C. Hanbury1 and B. Hughes2 ,1CLIMA, the University of Western Australia,2Pig and Poultry Production Institute, South Australia Pulse Species 43. Species time of sowing, B. French, Department of Agriculture 44. High value pulses in the Great Southern, N. Brandon and N. Runciman, Department of Agriculture 45. Time of Harvest for improved seed yields of pulses, G. Riethmuller and B. French, Department of Agriculture 46. Phosphate acquisition efficiency of pulse crops, P. Rees, Plant Biology, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences UWA DEMONSTRATION OF PULSES IN THE FARMING SYSTEM 47. Howzat desi chickpea in the northern region, M. Harries, Department of Agriculture 48. Field pea harvest losses in the Great Southern and Esperance region, N. Brandon and M. Seymour, Department of Agriculture 49. Timing of crop topping in field pea, N. Brandon and G. Riethmuller, Department of Agriculture DISEASE AND PEST MANAGEMENT 50. Ascochyta blight of chickpea, B. MacLeod, M. Harries and N. Brandon, Department of Agriculture 51. Evaluation of Australian management packages, 52. Screening foliar fungicides 53. Row spacing and row spraying 54. Ascochyta management package for 2002, B. MacLeod, Department of Agriculture 55. Epidemiology of aschochyta and botrytis disease of pulses, J. Galloway and B. MacLeod, Department of Agriculture 56. Ascochyta blight of chickpea 57. Black spot of field pea 58. Ascochyta blight of faba bean 59. Ascochyta blight of lentil 60. Botrytis grey mould of chickpea 61. Black spot spread: Disease models are based in reality, J. Galloway, Department of Agriculture 62. Black spot spread: Scaling-up field data to simulate ‘Bakers farm’, M. Salam, J. Galloway, A. Diggle and B. MacLeod, Department of Agriculture 63. Pulse disease diagnostics, N. Burges and D. Wright, Department of Agriculture Viruses in pulses 64. Incidence of virus diseases in chickpea, J. Hawkes1, D. Thackray1 and R. Jones1,2, 1CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 2Department of Agriculture Insect pests 65. Risk assessment of aphid feeding damage on pulses, O. Edwards, J. Ridsdill-Smith, and R. Horbury, CSIRO Entomology 66. Optimum spray timing to control aphid feeding damage of faba bean, F. Berlandier, Department of Agriculture 67. Incorporation of pea weevil resistance into a field pea variety, O. Byrne1 and D. Hardie2, 1CLIMA, The University of Western Australia, 2Department of Agriculture 68. Screening wild chickpea species for resistance to Helicoverpa, T. Ridsdill-Smith1 and H. Sharma2,1CSIRO, Entomology, 2ICRISAT, Hyderabad 69. Field strategies to manage the evolution of pea weevil resistance in transgenic field pea, M. de Sousa Majer1, R. Roush2, D. Hardie3, R. Morton4 and T. Higgins4, 1Curtin University of Technology, 2Waite Campus, University of Adelaide, 3Department of Agriculture, 4CSIRO Plant Industry, Canberra 70. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 71. Appendix 1: Summary of previous result

Crop Updates 2000 - Pulses

This session covers fifty nine papers from different authors: 1.1999 PULSE INDUSTRY HIGHLIGHTS 2. CONTRIBUTORS 3. BACKGROUND 4. SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS RESULTS 5. 1999 REGIONAL ROUNDUP 6. Northern Agricultural Region, W. O’Neill, AGWEST 7. Central Agricultural Region J. Russell and R.J. French AGWEST 8. Great Southern and Lakes N. Brandon, C. Gaskin and N. Runciman, AGWEST 9. Esperance Mallee M. Seymour, AGWEST PULSE PRODUCTION AGRONOMY AND GENETIC IMPROVEMENT 10. Faba Bean 11. Desi chickpea Traits associated with drought resistance in chickpea, J. Berger, N.C. Turner, CLIMA and CSIRO Plant Industry, R.J. French, AGWEST, R. Carpenter, C. Ludwig and R. Kenney, CSIRO Plant Industry 12. Genotype x environment analysis of chickpea adaptation, J. Berger and N. Turner, CLIMA and CSIRO Plant Industry, and K.H.M. Siddique, AGWEST 13. Carbon fixation by chickpea pods under terminal drought, Q. Ma, CLIMA, M.H. Behboudian, Massey University, New Zealand, N.C. Turner and J.A. Palta, CLIMA, and CSIRO Plant Industry 14. Influence of terminal drought on growth and seed quality, M.H. Behboudian, Massey University, New Zealand, Q. Ma, CLIMA, N.C. Turner and J.A. Palta, CSIRO Plant Industry 15. Resistance to chilling at flowering and to budworm, H. Clarke, CLIMA Chickpea nodulation survey, J. Stott and J. Howieson, Centre for Rhizobium Studies, Murdoch University 16. Kabuli chickpea 17. Premium quality kabuli chickpea development in the ORIA, K.H.M. Siddique CLIMA and AGWEST, K.L. Regan, AGWEST, R. Shackles, AGWEST 18. International screening for Ascochyta blight resistance, K.H.M. Siddique CLIMA and AGWEST, C. Francis, CLIMA, K.L. Regan, AGWEST, N. Acikgoz and N. Atikyilmaz, AARI, Turkey and R.S. Malholtra, ICARDA, Syria 19. Agronomic evaluation of Ascochyta resistant kabuli germplasm in WA, K.H.M. Siddique CLIMA and AGWESTC. Francis, CLIMA, K.L. Regan and M. Baker, AGWEST 20. Field Pea 21. Lentil 22. ACIAR project J. Clements, K.H.M. Siddique CLIMA and AGWEST and C. Francis CLIMA 23. Vetch 24. Rust, M. Seymour, AGWEST 25. Narbon bean 26. Agronomy, M. Seymour, AGWEST 27. Lupinus species 28. Screening lupins for tolerance to alkaline/calcareous soils, C. Tang, CLIMA andUniversity of WAand J.D. Brand, WAITE, University of Adelaide 29. Lathyrus development, C. Hanbury and K.H.M. Siddique, CLIMA and AGWEST 30. Sheep feeding studies, C. White, CSIRO, Perth, C. Hanbury, CLIMA and K.H.M. Siddique, CLIMA and AGWEST 31. Lathyrus: a potential new ingredient in pig diets, B.P. Mullan, C.D. Hanbury and K.H.M. Siddique, AGWEST 32. Species comparison 33. Species for horticultural rotations, K.H.M. Siddique, AGWEST, R. Lancaster and I. Guthridge AGWEST 34. Marrow fat field pea shows promise in the southwest, K.H.M. Siddique, AGWEST, N. Runciman, AGWEST, and I. Pritchard, AGWEST, 35. Pulses on grey clay soils, P. Fisher, M. Braimbridge, J. Bignell, N. Brandon, R. Beermier, W. Bowden, AGWEST 36. Nutrient management of pulses 37. Summary of pulse nutrition studies in WA, M.D.A. Bolland, K.H.M. Siddique, G.P. Riethmuller, and R.F. Brennan, AGWEST 38. Pulse species response to phosphorus and zinc, S. Lawrence, Zed Rengel, University of WA, S.P. Loss, CSBP futurefarm, M.D.A. Bolland, .H.M. Siddique, W. Bowden, AGWEST 39. Gypsum 40. Antitranspirants seed priming DEMONSTRATION OF PULSES IN THE FARMING SYSTEM 41. Foliar and soil applied nutrients for field peas in the south coast mallee,M. Seymour, AGWEST, and P. Vedeniapine, Phosyn Ltd 42. Demonstration of pulse species at Kendenup, C. Kirkwood, Farmer, Katanning, R. Beermier, N. Runciman and N. Brandon, AGWEST 43. Kabuli chickpea demonstration at Gnowangerup, R. Beermier and N. Brandon, AGWEST 44. Lathyrus sativus demonstration at Mindarabin, N. Brandon and R. Beermier, AGWEST 45. New field pea varieties in the central eastern region, J. Russell, AGWEST DISEASE AND PEST MANAGEMENT 46. Ascochyta blight of chickpea 47. Botrytis grey mould (BGM) of chickpea 48. Fungal disease diagnostics, Pulse disease diagnostics, D. Wright, AGWEST Plant Laboratories 49. Viruses in pulses, Luteovirus infection in field pea and faba bean crops, and viruses in seed, L. Latham, CLIMA and AGWEST, R. Jones, AGWEST 50. Screening of pulse species for pea seed-borne mosaic virus, L. Latham, CLIMAand AGWEST, and R. Jones, AGWEST 51. CMV in chickpea: effect of seed-borne sources on virus spread and seed yield, R. Jones, AGWEST and L. Latham, CLIMA and AGWEST 52. Insect pests 53. Evaluation of transgenic field pea against the pea weevil,M.J. de Sousa Majer, School of Environmental Biology, Curtin University of Technology,, D. Hardie, and N.C. Turner, CSIRO Division of Plant Industry 54. Development of a molecular marker for pea weevil resistance in field pea, Oonagh Byrne, CLIMA, Darryl Hardie, AGWEST and Penny Smith, UWA 55. Aphid feeding damage to faba bean and lentil crops, Françoise Berlandier, AGWEST 56. Taxonomy and control of bruchids in pulses, N. Keals, CLIMA, D. Hardie and R. Emery, AGWEST, 57. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 58. PUBLICATIONS BY PULSE PRODUCTIVITY PROJECT STAFF 59. VARIETIES PRODUCED AND COMMERCIALLY RELEASE

Evaluation of individual and ensemble probabilistic forecasts of COVID-19 mortality in the United States

Short-term probabilistic forecasts of the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States have served as a visible and important communication channel between the scientific modeling community and both the general public and decision-makers. Forecasting models provide specific, quantitative, and evaluable predictions that inform short-term decisions such as healthcare staffing needs, school closures, and allocation of medical supplies. Starting in April 2020, the US COVID-19 Forecast Hub (https://covid19forecasthub.org/) collected, disseminated, and synthesized tens of millions of specific predictions from more than 90 different academic, industry, and independent research groups. A multimodel ensemble forecast that combined predictions from dozens of groups every week provided the most consistently accurate probabilistic forecasts of incident deaths due to COVID-19 at the state and national level from April 2020 through October 2021. The performance of 27 individual models that submitted complete forecasts of COVID-19 deaths consistently throughout this year showed high variability in forecast skill across time, geospatial units, and forecast horizons. Two-thirds of the models evaluated showed better accuracy than a naïve baseline model. Forecast accuracy degraded as models made predictions further into the future, with probabilistic error at a 20-wk horizon three to five times larger than when predicting at a 1-wk horizon. This project underscores the role that collaboration and active coordination between governmental public-health agencies, academic modeling teams, and industry partners can play in developing modern modeling capabilities to support local, state, and federal response to outbreaks

The United States COVID-19 Forecast Hub dataset

Academic researchers, government agencies, industry groups, and individuals have produced forecasts at an unprecedented scale during the COVID-19 pandemic. To leverage these forecasts, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) partnered with an academic research lab at the University of Massachusetts Amherst to create the US COVID-19 Forecast Hub. Launched in April 2020, the Forecast Hub is a dataset with point and probabilistic forecasts of incident cases, incident hospitalizations, incident deaths, and cumulative deaths due to COVID-19 at county, state, and national, levels in the United States. Included forecasts represent a variety of modeling approaches, data sources, and assumptions regarding the spread of COVID-19. The goal of this dataset is to establish a standardized and comparable set of short-term forecasts from modeling teams. These data can be used to develop ensemble models, communicate forecasts to the public, create visualizations, compare models, and inform policies regarding COVID-19 mitigation. These open-source data are available via download from GitHub, through an online API, and through R packages

AI is a viable alternative to high throughput screening: a 318-target study

: High throughput screening (HTS) is routinely used to identify bioactive small molecules. This requires physical compounds, which limits coverage of accessible chemical space. Computational approaches combined with vast on-demand chemical libraries can access far greater chemical space, provided that the predictive accuracy is sufficient to identify useful molecules. Through the largest and most diverse virtual HTS campaign reported to date, comprising 318 individual projects, we demonstrate that our AtomNet® convolutional neural network successfully finds novel hits across every major therapeutic area and protein class. We address historical limitations of computational screening by demonstrating success for target proteins without known binders, high-quality X-ray crystal structures, or manual cherry-picking of compounds. We show that the molecules selected by the AtomNet® model are novel drug-like scaffolds rather than minor modifications to known bioactive compounds. Our empirical results suggest that computational methods can substantially replace HTS as the first step of small-molecule drug discovery

Safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines given as fourth-dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 and a third dose of BNT162b2 (COV-BOOST): a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised trial

Background Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19.Methods The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 µg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 µg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (antispike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing.Findings Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6–77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3–214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030–27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996–43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41–1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996–30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826–64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90–2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37–14·32) and 15·90 (12·92–19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24–16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90–9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group).Interpretation Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose