Study of space battery accelerated testing techniques. Phase 1 report. Survey of testing methods applicable to space battery evaluation

Testing methods applicable to space battery evaluation - literature surve

On the interaction forces and responses of structural rings subjected to fragment impact Interim technical report, 1 Aug. 1969 - 31 Jul. 1970

FORTRAN 4 program for calculating dynamic Kirchhoff deformation of structural rings subjected to fragment impac

Development of large-internal-surface-area nickel-metal plaques third quarterly progress report, dec. 19, 1964 - mar. 18, 1965

Electrodes impregnated with cadmium for porosity and electrochemical evaluatio

Study of space battery accelerated testing techniques. Phase 2 report - Ideal approaches towards accelerated tests and analysis of data

Ideal approaches to accelerated life tests and data analysis applied to space batterie

Development of large-internal-surface-area nickel-metal plaques Final report, Jun. 18, 1964 - Sep. 30, 1965

Large internal surface area porous nickel metal plaques for rechargeable cadmium electrodes to improve nickel-cadmium batterie

Development of a novel scheme for long-term body temperature monitoring: a review of benefits and applications

Body temperature is a health or disease marker that has been in clinical use for centuries. The threshold currently applied to define fever, with small variations, is 38 °C. However, current approaches do not provide a full picture of the thermoregulation process and its correlation with disease. This paper describes a new non-invasive body temperature device that improves the understanding of the pathophysiology of diseases by integrating a variety of temperature data from different body locations. This device enables to gain a deeper insight into fever, endogenous rhythms, subject activity and ambient temperature to provide anticipatory and more efficient treatments. Its clinical use would be a big step in the overcoming of the anachronistic febrile/afebrile dichotomy and walking towards a system medicine approach to certain diseases. This device has already been used in some clinical applications successfully. Other possible applications based on the device features and clinical requirements are also described in this paper.Cuesta Frau, D.; Varela Entrecanales, M.; Valor Pérez, R.; Vargas, B. (2015). Development of a novel scheme for long-term body temperature monitoring: a review of benefits and applications. Journal of Medical Systems. 39(4):1-7. doi:10.1007/s10916-015-0209-3S17394Gai, M., Merlo, I., Dellepiane, S., Cantaluppi, V., Leonardi, G., Fop, F., Guarena, C., Grassi, G., and Biancore, L., Glycemic pattern in diabetic patients on hemodialysis: Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) analysis. Blood Purif. 38(1):68–73 , 2014.Kondziella, D., Friberg, C.K., Wellwood, I., Reiffurth, C., Fabricius, M., and Dreier, J.P.: Continuous EEG monitoring in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: A systematic review. Neurocrit. Care (2014)Ciccone, A., Celani, M.G., Chiaramonte, R., Rossi, C., and Righetti, E., Continuous versus intermittent physiological monitoring for acute stroke. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 31, 2013.Kushimoto, S., Yamanouchi, S., Endo, T., Sato, T., Nomura, R., Fujita, M., Kudo, D., Omura, T., Miyagawa, N., and Sato, T., Body temperature abnormalities in non-neurological critically ill patients: A review of the literature. J. Intensive Care 2, 2014.Mc Callum, L., and Higgings, D., Measuring body temperature. Nursing Times 108:20–22, 2012.Varela, M., Ruiz-Esteban, R., Martinez-Nicolas, A., Cuervo-Arango, A., Barros, C., and Delgado, E.G., Catching the spike and tracking the flow: Holter-temperature monitoring in patients admitted in a general internal medicine ward. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 65(12):1283–1288, 2011.Lopes, F., Peres, D., Bross, A., Melot, C., and Vincent, J.L., Serial evaluation of the SOFA score to predict outcome in critically ill patients. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 286:1754–1758, 2001.Vincent, J.L., and Moreno, R., Clinical review: Scoring systems in the critically ill. Crit. Care, 14, 2010.Sund-Levander, M., and Grodzinsky, E., Time for a change to assess and evaluate body temperature in clinical practice. Int. J. Nurs. Pract. 15:241–249, 2009.Cuesta-Frau, D., Varela, M., Aboy, M., and Miro, P., Description of a portable wireless device for body temperature acquisition and analysis. Sensors 9(10):7648–7663, 2009.Varela, M., Cuesta-Frau, D., Madrid, J.A., Churruca, J., Miro-Matinez, P., Ruiz, R., and Marinez, C., Holter monitoring of central peripheral temperature: Possible uses and feasibility study in outpatient settings. J. Clin. Monit. Comput. 4(23):209–216, 2009.Jordan, J., Miro, P., Cuesta-Frau, D., Varela, M., and Vargas B.: Aplicacion de analisis multivariante para la deteccion de estados prefebriles en pacientes ingresados (in Spanish), XXXIV Congreso Nacional de Estadistica e Investigacion Operativa, Castellon (Spain) (2013)Richman, J., and Moorman, J.R., Physiological time-series analysis using approximate entropy and sample entropy. Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol. 278(6):H2039–2049, 2000.Young, P., Saxena, M., Eastwood, G.M., Bellomo, R., and Beasley, R., Fever and fever management among intensive care patients with known or suspected infection: A multicentre prospective cohort study. Crit. Care Resusc. 13:97–102 , 2011.Drewry, A.M., Fuller, B.M., Bailey, T.C., and Hotchkiss, R.S., Body temperature patterns as a predictor of hospital-acquired sepsis in afebrile adult intensive care unit patients: A case-control study. Crit. Care,17, 2013.Musher, D., Fainstein, V., Young, E., and Pruett, T., Fever patterns. Their lack of significance. Arch. Intern. Med. 139(11):1225–8, 1979.Varela, M., Calvo, M., Chana, M., Gomez-Mestre, I., Asensio, R., and Galdos, P., Clinical implications of temperature curve complexity in critically ill patients. Crit. Care Med. 33(12):2764–2771, 2005.Varela, M., Churruca, J., Gonzalez, A., Martin, A., Ode, J., and Galdos, P., Temperature curve complexity predicts survival in critically ill patients. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 174(3):290–298, 2006.Cuesta-Frau, D., Varela, M., Miro, P., Galdos, P., Abasolo, D., Hornero, R., and Aboy, M., Predicting survival in critical patients by use of body temperature regularity measurement based on Approximate Entropy. Med. Biol. Eng. Computing 45:671–678, 2007.Mackiowak, P. Temperature regulation and the pathogenesis of fever, Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, pp. 765–778. New York: Churchill Livingston Elsevier, 2010.Cherbuin N., and Brinkman C., Cognition is cool: Can hemispheric activation be assessed by tympanic membrane thermometry? Brain Cogn. 54:228–231, 2004

Search for dark matter produced in association with bottom or top quarks in √s = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector

A search for weakly interacting massive particle dark matter produced in association with bottom or top quarks is presented. Final states containing third-generation quarks and miss- ing transverse momentum are considered. The analysis uses 36.1 fb−1 of proton–proton collision data recorded by the ATLAS experiment at √s = 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016. No significant excess of events above the estimated backgrounds is observed. The results are in- terpreted in the framework of simplified models of spin-0 dark-matter mediators. For colour- neutral spin-0 mediators produced in association with top quarks and decaying into a pair of dark-matter particles, mediator masses below 50 GeV are excluded assuming a dark-matter candidate mass of 1 GeV and unitary couplings. For scalar and pseudoscalar mediators produced in association with bottom quarks, the search sets limits on the production cross- section of 300 times the predicted rate for mediators with masses between 10 and 50 GeV and assuming a dark-matter mass of 1 GeV and unitary coupling. Constraints on colour- charged scalar simplified models are also presented. Assuming a dark-matter particle mass of 35 GeV, mediator particles with mass below 1.1 TeV are excluded for couplings yielding a dark-matter relic density consistent with measurements

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570