Detector Description and Performance for the First Coincidence Observations between LIGO and GEO

For 17 days in August and September 2002, the LIGO and GEO interferometer gravitational wave detectors were operated in coincidence to produce their first data for scientific analysis. Although the detectors were still far from their design sensitivity levels, the data can be used to place better upper limits on the flux of gravitational waves incident on the earth than previous direct measurements. This paper describes the instruments and the data in some detail, as a companion to analysis papers based on the first data.Comment: 41 pages, 9 figures 17 Sept 03: author list amended, minor editorial change

Elevated globotriaosylsphingosine is a hallmark of Fabry disease

FWN – Publicaties zonder aanstelling Universiteit Leide

Search for gravitational-wave transients associated with magnetar bursts in advanced LIGO and advanced Virgo data from the third observing run

Gravitational waves are expected to be produced from neutron star oscillations associated with magnetar giant f lares and short bursts. We present the results of a search for short-duration (milliseconds to seconds) and longduration (∼100 s) transient gravitational waves from 13 magnetar short bursts observed during Advanced LIGO, Advanced Virgo, and KAGRA’s third observation run. These 13 bursts come from two magnetars, SGR1935 +2154 and SwiftJ1818.0−1607. We also include three other electromagnetic burst events detected by FermiGBM which were identified as likely coming from one or more magnetars, but they have no association with a known magnetar. No magnetar giant flares were detected during the analysis period. We find no evidence of gravitational waves associated with any of these 16 bursts. We place upper limits on the rms of the integrated incident gravitational-wave strain that reach 3.6 × 10−²³ Hz at 100 Hz for the short-duration search and 1.1 ×10−²² Hz at 450 Hz for the long-duration search. For a ringdown signal at 1590 Hz targeted by the short-duration search the limit is set to 2.3 × 10−²² Hz. Using the estimated distance to each magnetar, we derive upper limits upper limits on the emitted gravitational-wave energy of 1.5 × 1044 erg (1.0 × 1044 erg) for SGR 1935+2154 and 9.4 × 10^43 erg (1.3 × 1044 erg) for Swift J1818.0−1607, for the short-duration (long-duration) search. Assuming isotropic emission of electromagnetic radiation of the burst fluences, we constrain the ratio of gravitational-wave energy to electromagnetic energy for bursts from SGR 1935+2154 with the available fluence information. The lowest of these ratios is 4.5 × 103

Open data from the third observing run of LIGO, Virgo, KAGRA, and GEO

The global network of gravitational-wave observatories now includes five detectors, namely LIGO Hanford, LIGO Livingston, Virgo, KAGRA, and GEO 600. These detectors collected data during their third observing run, O3, composed of three phases: O3a starting in 2019 April and lasting six months, O3b starting in 2019 November and lasting five months, and O3GK starting in 2020 April and lasting two weeks. In this paper we describe these data and various other science products that can be freely accessed through the Gravitational Wave Open Science Center at https://gwosc.org. The main data set, consisting of the gravitational-wave strain time series that contains the astrophysical signals, is released together with supporting data useful for their analysis and documentation, tutorials, as well as analysis software packages

A joint Fermi-GBM and Swift-BAT analysis of gravitational-wave candidates from the third gravitational-wave observing run

We present Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (Fermi-GBM) and Swift Burst Alert Telescope (Swift-BAT) searches for gamma-ray/X-ray counterparts to gravitational-wave (GW) candidate events identified during the third observing run of the Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo detectors. Using Fermi-GBM onboard triggers and subthreshold gamma-ray burst (GRB) candidates found in the Fermi-GBM ground analyses, the Targeted Search and the Untargeted Search, we investigate whether there are any coincident GRBs associated with the GWs. We also search the Swift-BAT rate data around the GW times to determine whether a GRB counterpart is present. No counterparts are found. Using both the Fermi-GBM Targeted Search and the Swift-BAT search, we calculate flux upper limits and present joint upper limits on the gamma-ray luminosity of each GW. Given these limits, we constrain theoretical models for the emission of gamma rays from binary black hole mergers

Lipid altering-efficacy of ezetimibe co-administered with simvastatin compared with rosuvastatin : a meta-analysis of pooled data from 14 clinical trials

OBJECTIVE: Results of direct comparative studies between ezetimibe/simvastatin and rosuvastatin therapies have not been reported. Both of these treatment options offer significant reductions in LDL-C. To evaluate the lipid efficacy of each of these therapies relative to each other, a meta-analysis of data from 14 randomized, double-blind clinical trials that compared the effectiveness of two new options for cholesterol lowering was performed. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE and BIOSIS databases were searched up to March 14, 2004. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Efficacy results from clinical trials with the co-administration of ezetimibe 10 mg with simvastatin or with the ezetimibe/simvastatin combination product (ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/10 mg, 10/20 mg, 10/40 mg, and 10/80 mg) were compared with efficacy results from clinical trials of rosuvastatin 5 mg, 10 mg, 20 mg, and 40 mg in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. Trials in healthy patients, heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or combined hyperlipidemia, and pharmacokinetic trials were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: This analysis used pooled data for LDL-C, HDL-C, non-HDL-C, triglycerides, total cholesterol, apolipoprotein (apo) A-I, and apo B for the two therapies at their lowest doses (ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/10 mg and rosuvastatin 5 mg) through their highest doses (ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/80 mg and rosuvastatin 40 mg), and estimated within-treatment percentage changes in these parameters. Percentage reductions from baseline in LDL-C for the pooled data were 46.2% and 41.8% for ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/10 mg and rosuvastatin 5 mg, respectively; 50.6% and 47.4% for ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg and rosuvastatin 10 mg, respectively; 55.9% and 52.1% for ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg and rosuvastatin 20 mg, respectively; and 59.7% and 58.5% for ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/80 mg and rosuvastatin 40 mg, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this meta-analysis suggest greater LDL-C lowering with ezetimibe/simvastatin compared with rosuvastatin. These results need to be confirmed in a head-to-head comparison of both therapies