Experimental determination of the 17O(n_th,alpha)14C reaction cross section

The 17O(n_th,alpha)14C reaction cross section was determined at the high flux reactor of the ILL in Grenoble relative to the known 14N(n_th,p)14C cross section. The 17O(n_th,alpha)14C measurements were performed with several highly enriched oxygen gas samples and the flux calibration was done with 14N_2 from the air. This resulted in a precise value of (244+/-7)mb for the 17O(n_th,alpha)14C cross section.Comment: 4 pages, 3 figures, to be published in proceedings of Nuclei in the Cosmos V (1998

Measurement of the U-236(n, f) cross section in the neutron energy range from 0.5 eV up to 25 keV

The U-236(n,f) cross section has been measured in the energy range from 0.5 eV to 25 keV at the Geel Electron Linear Accelerator neutron time-of-flight facility of the Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements in Geel, Belgium. A highly enriched U-236 sample was mounted back-to-back with a B-10 sample in the center of a Frisch-gridded ionization chamber, hence realizing a 2 pi detection geometry. A U-235(n,f) cross-section control measurement was performed in the same experimental conditions. Special attention has been given to the fission resonance integral I-f and to the strongest resonance at 5.45 eV, for which a resonance analysis has been performed yielding Gamma(f) = 1.7 mu eV Both values are highly overestimated in the literature

Determining key clinical predictors for chronic ankle instability and return to sports with cost of illness analysis: protocol of a prospective cohort study

Introduction: Ankle sprains are common in sports and the general population. Although considered innocuous, a large proportion has residual complaints such as recurrent ankle sprains and develop chronic ankle instability. Although some predicting factors are identified, there is no unequivocality regarding the development of chronic ankle instability, nor about the optimal rehabilitation for an acute ankle sprain. Alongside the biomechanical impairments, ankle sprains are a burden on society due to substantial economic costs. Therefore, we aim to identify key clinical predictors of chronic ankle instability or recovery after acute lateral ankle sprain. Additionally, we aim to determine cost-of-illness of patients who developed chronic ankle instability. Methods and analysis: This prospective cohort study (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05637008 - pre-results) aims to recruit adult (18-55 years) patients with an acute lateral ankle sprain who are active in sports. Clinical assessments and patient-reported outcome measures will be used to collect data at 7-14 days, 6 weeks, 12 weeks and 12 months after enrolment in the study. The primary outcome will be chronic ankle instability at 12-month follow-up. Salient outcomes will be analysed by logistic regression to determine association with the development of chronic ankle instability. Participants will fill in a cost diary containing direct and indirect costs related to their injury. Ethics and disseminations: The ethical committee of the Antwerp University Hospital (B3002022000138) has given approval of the protocol and consent forms on 10 October 2022. We perform this study according to the Helsinki Declaration. We will present results at conferences or webinars and publish in peer-reviewed articles.NCT05637008

Impairment-based assessments for patients with lateral ankle sprain: A systematic review of measurement properties

Study design Systematic review. Background and objective The International Ankle Consortium developed a core outcome set for the assessment of impairments in patients with lateral ankle sprain (LAS) without consideration of measurement properties (MP). Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate MPs of assessments for the evaluation of individuals with a history of LAS. Methods This systematic review of measurement properties follows PRISMA and COSMIN guidelines. Databases Pubmed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and SPORTDiscus were searched for eligible studies (last search: July 2022). Studies on MP of specific tests and patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) in patients with acute and history of LAS (>4 weeks post injury) were deemed eligible. Results Ten studies of acute LAS and 39 studies of history of LAS patients with a total of 3313 participants met the inclusion criteria. Anterior Drawer Test (ADT) in supine position five days post injury and Reverse Anterolateral Drawer Test are recommended in acute settings in single studies. In the history of LAS patients, Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT) (4 studies) as a PROM, Multiple Hop (3 studies) and Star Excursion Balance Tests (SEBT) (3 studies) for dynamic postural balance testing showed good MPs. No studies investigated pain, physical activity level and gait. Only single studies reported on swelling, range of motion, strength, arthrokinematics, and static postural balance. Limited data existed on responsiveness of the tests in both subgroups. Conclusion There was good evidence to support the use of CAIT as PROM, Multiple Hop, and SEBT for dynamic postural balance testing. Insufficient evidence exists in relation to test responsiveness, especially in the acute situation. Future research should assess MPs of assessments of other impairments associated with LAS

Norms of public argumentation and the ideals of correctness and participation

Argumentation as the public exchange of reasons is widely thought to enhance deliberative interactions that generate and justify reasonable public policies. Adopting an argumentation-theoretic perspective, we survey the norms that should govern public argumentation and address some of the complexities that scholarly treatments have identified. Our focus is on norms associated with the ideals of correctness and participation as sources of a politically legitimate deliberative outcome. In principle, both ideals are mutually coherent. If the information needed for a correct deliberative outcome is distributed among agents, then maximising participation increases information diversity. But both ideals can also be in tension. If participants lack competence or are prone to biases, a correct deliberative outcome requires limiting participation. The central question for public argumentation, therefore, is how to strike a balance between both ideals. Rather than advocating a preferred normative framework, our main purpose is to illustrate the complexity of this theme