Mpemba Effect, Shechtman's Quasicrystals and Students' Exploring Activities

In the 1960s, Tanzanian student Erasto Mpemba and his teacher published an article with the title "Cool" in the journal Physics Education (Mpemba, E. B. - Osborne, D. G.: Cool?. In: Physics Education, vol.4, 1969, pp. 172-175.). In this article they claimed that hot water freezes faster than cold water. The article raised not only a wave of discussions, and other articles about this topic, but also a whole series of new experiments, which should verify this apparent thermodynamic absurdity and find an adequate explanation. Here we give a review with references to explanations and we bring some proposals for experimental student work in this area. We introduce Mpemba Effect not only as a paradoxical physics phenomenon, but we shall present a strong educational message that the Mpemba story brings to the teachers and their students. This message also creates a bridge between this phenomenon and the discovery for which the 2011 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded. It leads to critical adoption of traditional knowledge and encourages resilience in investigative exploration of new things

Towards a multi-arm multi-stage platform trial of disease modifying approaches in Parkinson’s disease

\ua9 The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain.An increase in the efficiency of clinical trial conduct has been successfully demonstrated in the oncology field, by the use of multi-arm, multi-stage trials allowing the evaluation of multiple therapeutic candidates simultaneously, and seamless recruitment to phase 3 for those candidates passing an interim signal of efficacy. Replicating this complex innovative trial design in diseases such as Parkinson’s disease is appealing, but in addition to the challenges associated with any trial assessing a single potentially disease modifying intervention in Parkinson’s disease, a multiarm platform trial must also specifically consider the heterogeneous nature of the disease, alongside the desire to potentially test multiple treatments with different mechanisms of action. In a multi-arm trial, there is a need to appropriately stratify treatment arms to ensure each are comparable with a shared placebo/standard of care arm; however, in Parkinson’s disease there may be a preference to enrich an arm with a subgroup of patients that may be most likely to respond to a specific treatment approach. The solution to this conundrum lies in having clearly defined criteria for inclusion in each treatment arm as well as an analysis plan that takes account of predefined subgroups of interest, alongside evaluating the impact of each treatment on the broader population of Parkinson’s disease patients. Beyond this, there must be robust processes of treatment selection, and consensus derived measures to confirm target engagement and interim assessments of efficacy, as well as consideration of the infrastructure needed to support recruitment, and the long-term funding and sustainability of the platform. This has to incorporate the diverse priorities of clinicians, triallists, regulatory authorities and above all the views of people with Parkinson’s disease

Towards a multi-arm multi-stage platform trial of disease modifying approaches in Parkinson’s disease

An increase in the efficiency of clinical trial conduct has been successfully demonstrated in the oncology field, by the use of multi-arm, multi-stage trials allowing the evaluation of multiple therapeutic candidates simultaneously, and seamless recruitment to phase 3 for those candidates passing an interim signal of efficacy. Replicating this complex innovative trial design in diseases such as Parkinson’s disease is appealing, but in addition to the challenges associated with any trial assessing a single potentially disease modifying intervention in Parkinson’s disease, a multi-arm platform trial must also specifically consider the heterogeneous nature of the disease, alongside the desire to potentially test multiple treatments with different mechanisms of action. In a multi-arm trial, there is a need to appropriately stratify treatment arms to ensure each are comparable with a shared placebo/standard of care arm; however, in Parkinson’s disease there may be a preference to enrich an arm with a subgroup of patients that may be most likely to respond to a specific treatment approach. The solution to this conundrum lies in having clearly defined criteria for inclusion in each treatment arm as well as an analysis plan that takes account of predefined subgroups of interest, alongside evaluating the impact of each treatment on the broader population of Parkinson’s disease patients. Beyond this, there must be robust processes of treatment selection, and consensus derived measures to confirm target engagement and interim assessments of efficacy, as well as consideration of the infrastructure needed to support recruitment, and the long-term funding and sustainability of the platform. This has to incorporate the diverse priorities of clinicians, triallists, regulatory authorities and above all the views of people with Parkinson’s disease

Kamus saku fisika

*Buku ini hanya bisa dibaca & fotocopy di dalam perpustakaan / tidak dipinjamkan.**Silahkan hubungi petugas untuk mengetahui informasi lebih lanjut

Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in the Development of a Platform Clinical Trial for Parkinson\u27s Disease: An Evaluation Protocol

Background: Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in the design of trials is important, as participant experience critically impacts delivery. The Edmond J Safra Accelerating Clinical Trials in PD (EJS ACT-PD) initiative is a UK consortium designing a platform trial for disease modifying therapies in PD. Objective: The integration of PPIE in all aspects of trial design and its evaluation throughout the project. Methods: PwP and care partners were recruited to a PPIE working group (WG) via UK Parkinson\u27s charities, investigator patient groups and participants of a Delphi study on trial design. They are supported by charity representatives, trial delivery experts, researchers and core project team members. PPIE is fully embedded within the consortium\u27s five other WGs and steering group. The group\u27s terms of reference, processes for effective working and PPIE evaluation were co-developed with PPIE contributors. Results: 11 PwP and 4 care partners have supported the PPIE WG and contributed to the development of processes for effective working. A mixed methods research-in-action study is ongoing to evaluate PPIE within the consortium. This includes the Patient Engagement in Research Scale -a quantitative PPIE quality measure; semi-structured interviews -identifying areas for improvement and overall impressions of involvement; process fidelity- recording adherence; project documentation review - identifying impact of PPIE on project outputs. Conclusions: We provide a practical example of PPIE in complex projects. Evaluating feasibility, experiences and impact of PPIE involvement in EJS ACT-PD will inform similar programs on effective strategies. This will help enable future patient-centered research