Baroque AI

Publication prototype: A computational publishing and AI assisted writing course unit with students of the Open Knowledge class – at Hochschule Hannover with the Open Science Lab, TIB. The prototype publication exercise involves creating a fictional ‘exhibition catalogue’ drawing on Wikidata based cataloguing of seventeenth century painting deposited by the Bavarian State Painting Collections. The prototype demostrates how computational publishing can be used to bring together different distributed linked open data (LOD) sources. Additionally AI tools are used for assisted essay writing. Then both are encapsulated in a multi-format computational publication — allowing for asynchronous collaborative working. Distributed LOD sources include: Wikidata/base, Nextcloud, Thoth, Semantic Kompakkt, and TIB AV Portal. AI tools used for essay writing are — OpenAI and Perplexity. Eleven students completed the class unit which was carried out over March to April 2023. An open access OER guide to running the class, a template publication for use in the class are online on GitHub and designed for OER reuse. Full class information and resources are on Wikiversity. The open source software used is brought together in the ADA Pipeline

Baroque AI

Publication prototype: A computational publishing and AI assisted writing course unit with students of the Open Knowledge class – at Hochschule Hannover with the Open Science Lab, TIB. The prototype publication exercise involves creating a fictional ‘exhibition catalogue’ drawing on Wikidata based cataloguing of seventeenth century painting deposited by the Bavarian State Painting Collections. The prototype demostrates how computational publishing can be used to bring together different distributed linked open data (LOD) sources. Additionally AI tools are used for assisted essay writing. Then both are encapsulated in a multi-format computational publication — allowing for asynchronous collaborative working. Distributed LOD sources include: Wikidata/base, Nextcloud, Thoth, Semantic Kompakkt, and TIB AV Portal. AI tools used for essay writing are — OpenAI and Perplexity. Eleven students completed the class unit which was carried out over March to April 2023. An open access OER guide to running the class, a template publication for use in the class are online on GitHub and designed for OER reuse. Full class information and resources are on Wikiversity. The open source software used is brought together in the ADA Pipeline

OCK – Open Climate Knowledge

100% open collaborative research for climate change knowledge / using data mining & open science publishing. The climate crisis of the predicted atmosphere temperatures rising to 1.5C + makes it imperative that research related to climate change be put to better use by being open and digitally connected. We are concerned with making all aspects of research open, but as an example, less than 30% of research papers related to climate change are Open Access (Tai and Robinson 2018). This must change now

Integrin αvβ8-mediated TGF-β activation by effector regulatory T sells is essential for suppression of T-Cell-mediated inflammation

Regulatory T (Treg) cells play a pivotal role in suppressing self-harmful T cell responses, but how Treg cells mediate suppression to maintain immune homeostasis and limit responses during inflammation is unclear. Here we show that effector Treg cells express high amounts of the integrin αvβ8, which enables them to activate latent transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β). Treg-cell-specific deletion of integrin αvβ8 did not result in a spontaneous inflammatory phenotype, suggesting that this pathway is not important in Treg-cell-mediated maintenance of immune homeostasis. However, Treg cells lacking expression of integrin αvβ8 were unable to suppress pathogenic T cell responses during active inflammation. Thus, our results identify a mechanism by which Treg cells suppress exuberant immune responses, highlighting a key role for effector Treg-cell-mediated activation of latent TGF-β in suppression of self-harmful T cell responses during active inflammation

Towards the Development of a Standard for the PS Suspension Logger

The PS logger is a well-established seismic tool for measuring P and S wave velocities in a single borehole, using low frequency indirect excitation originating from a dipole source. Because of its low operating frequency, it is capable of generating seismic waves in slow, unconsolidated materials such as those found in offshore environments where S wave velocity is often used to estimate the small strain stiffness, Gmax (of particular interest to offshore construction). Despite its widespread use, there is no current standard for the use of the PS logger, even though other methods operating on similar principles have well-established reference methodologies and guidelines. As such, PS logger methodology is largely dictated by user manuals written by manufacturers, which likely introduces inconsistencies in operation guidelines, and may impede consistency in data obtained by different users. In this paper, the authors conduct a literature review of existing standards for relevant methods including CPT, SPT, SCPT and downhole and crosshole seismic testing, as well as relevant ground investigation standards, identifying the need for standardisation of the PS logging method. Examination of the current state of standardisation concludes that although existing seismic testing standards could possibly be expanded to include the PS logging method, the differing constraints and operational requirements are such that the development of a specific PS logger testing standard is highly recommended. An initial framework is presented for a PS logger standard, identifying the required components, in terms of borehole requirements, testing procedure, data interpretation and best practice

Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces.

Background: Retention is the phase of orthodontic treatment that attempts to keep teeth in the corrected positions after treatment with orthodontic braces. Without a phase of retention, there is a tendency for teeth to return to their initial position (relapse). To prevent relapse, almost every person who has orthodontic treatment will require some type of retention. Objectives: To evaluate the effects of different retention strategies used to stabilise tooth position after orthodontic braces. Search methods: We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 26 January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 26 January 2016) and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 26 January 2016). We searched for ongoing trials in the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We applied no language or date restrictions in the searches of the electronic databases. We contacted authors of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to help identify any unpublished trials. Selection criteria: RCTs involving children and adults who had had retainers fitted or adjunctive procedures undertaken to prevent relapse following orthodontic treatment with braces. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened eligible studies, assessed the risk of bias in the trials and extracted data. The outcomes of interest were: how well the teeth were stabilised, failure of retainers, adverse effects on oral health and participant satisfaction. We calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous data and risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes. We conducted meta-analyses when studies with similar methodology reported the same outcome. We prioritised reporting of Little's Irregularity Index to measure relapse. Main results: We included 15 studies (1722 participants) in the review. There are also four ongoing studies and four studies await classification. The 15 included studies evaluated four comparisons: removable retainers versus fixed retainers (three studies); different types of fixed retainers (four studies); different types of removable retainers (eight studies); and one study compared a combination of upper thermoplastic and lower bonded versus upper thermoplastic with lower adjunctive procedures versus positioner. Four studies had a low risk of bias, four studies had an unclear risk of bias and seven studies had a high risk of bias. Removable versus fixed retainers Thermoplastic removable retainers provided slightly poorer stability in the lower arch than multistrand fixed retainers: MD (Little's Irregularity Index, 0 mm is stable) 0.6 mm (95% CI 0.17 to 1.03). This was based on one trial with 84 participants that was at high risk of bias; it was low quality evidence. Results on retainer failure were inconsistent. There was evidence of less gingival bleeding with removable retainers: RR 0.53 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.88; one trial, 84 participants, high risk of bias, low quality evidence), but participants found fixed retainers more acceptable to wear, with a mean difference on a visual analogue scale (VAS; 0 to 100; 100 being very satisfied) of -12.84 (95% CI -7.09 to -18.60). Fixed versus fixed retainers The studies did not report stability, adverse effects or participant satisfaction. It was possible to pool the data on retention failure from three trials that compared polyethylene ribbon bonded retainer versus multistrand retainer in the lower arch with an RR of 1.10 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.57; moderate heterogeneity; three trials, 228 participants, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in failure rates. It was also possible to pool the data from two trials that compared the same types of upper fixed retainers, with a similar finding: RR 1.25 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.78; low heterogeneity; two trials, 174 participants, low quality evidence). Removable versus removable retainers One study at low risk of bias comparing upper and lower part-time thermoplastic versus full-time thermoplastic retainer showed no evidence of a difference in relapse (graded moderate quality evidence). Another study, comparing part-time and full-time wear of lower Hawley retainers, found no evidence of any difference in relapse (low quality evidence). Two studies at high risk of bias suggested that stability was better in the lower arch for thermoplastic retainers versus Hawley, and for thermoplastic full-time versus Begg (full-time) (both low quality evidence). In one study, participants wearing Hawley retainers reported more embarrassment more often than participants wearing thermoplastic retainers: RR 2.42 (95% CI 1.30 to 4.49; one trial, 348 participants, high risk of bias, low quality evidence). They also found Hawley retainers harder to wear. There was conflicting evidence about survival rates of Hawley and thermoplastic retainers. Other retainer comparisons Another study with a low risk of bias looked at three different approaches to retention for people with crowding, but normal jaw relationships. The study found that there was no evidence of a difference in relapse between the combination of an upper thermoplastic and lower canine to canine bonded retainer and the combination of an upper thermoplastic retainer and lower interproximal stripping, without a lower retainer. Both these approaches are better than using a positioner as a retainer. Authors' conclusions: We did not find any evidence that wearing thermoplastic retainers full-time provides greater stability than wearing them part-time, but this was assessed in only a small number of participants. Overall, there is insufficient high quality evidence to make recommendations on retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces. Further high quality RCTs are needed