Characterizing the Viscoelastic Behavior of PDMS/PDPS Copolymers

Viscoelasticity is the property of materials that exhibits both viscous and elastic characteristics when undergoing deformation. In polymeric materials, the mechani- cal behavior is dominated by this viscoelastic phenomenon. Creating computational models for these materials can be quite complicated due to their frequency depen- dent and temperature dependent material properties. The research presented in this paper will use state of the art methods to fully develop a material model for a filled polydimethylsiloxane-polydiphenynlsiloxane (PDMS/PDPS) copolymer foam that has yet to be characterized. Mechanical properties of PDMS/PDPS copoly- mers are currently being studied to assess engineering performance, and to provide accurate models that can be used to gain a fundamental understanding of the ma- terial behavior. The properties for this material have been measured using multiple experiments. All of the parameters required to populate the Simplified Potential Energy Clock (SPEC) model were measured. The SPEC model can now be used to accurately predict the behavior of the material under different shock and loading environments

Establishing the relationship of inhaler satisfaction, treatment adherence, and patient outcomes : A prospective, real-world, cross-sectional survey of US adult asthma patients and physicians

Date of Acceptance: 26/06/2015 Acknowledgements The disease-specific program, on which the analyses were based, was designed and run by Adelphi Real World. The program was supported by a number of pharmaceutical companies, including Meda Pharmaceuticals. This specific analysis, together with this publication, was supported by Meda Pharmaceuticals. The decision to publish was made jointly by all authors cited. Medical writing support and literature searching was provided by Carole Alison Chrvala, PhD of Health Matters, Inc.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Returning Home When Immigration Fails: Risk Factors and the Need for Improved Care

Migrating is stressful. Even under the best of circumstances, voluntarily moving from one’s home country to another country requires careful consideration of several potentially stressful factors. A non-exhaustive list would include transportation, housing, finances, social support, language proficiency, and acculturation issues. In 2017, an estimated 68 million persons involuntarily migrated – 40 million internally displaced persons, 25 million refugees and 3 million asylum seekers (United Nations, 2017). Forcible displacement puts individuals and families at even greater risk of stress related to moving – as there is generally less time available for planning. What happens when immigration fails, particularly for those who were forcibly displaced? The risk to well-being naturally increases, but the nature and extent is unknown. Most of the research attention has been given to the challenges faced during a migrant’s outbound journey. To date, little attention has focused on the challenges faced when migrants are required to return home. This paper highlights some of the risk factors related to the journey home and the need for improved care

Discrete Optimization for Interpretable Study Populations and Randomization Inference in an Observational Study of Severe Sepsis Mortality

Motivated by an observational study of the effect of hospital ward versus intensive care unit admission on severe sepsis mortality, we develop methods to address two common problems in observational studies: (1) when there is a lack of covariate overlap between the treated and control groups, how to define an interpretable study population wherein inference can be conducted without extrapolating with respect to important variables; and (2) how to use randomization inference to form confidence intervals for the average treatment effect with binary outcomes. Our solution to problem (1) incorporates existing suggestions in the literature while yielding a study population that is easily understood in terms of the covariates themselves, and can be solved using an efficient branch-and-bound algorithm. We address problem (2) by solving a linear integer program to utilize the worst case variance of the average treatment effect among values for unobserved potential outcomes that are compatible with the null hypothesis. Our analysis finds no evidence for a difference between the sixty day mortality rates if all individuals were admitted to the ICU and if all patients were admitted to the hospital ward among less severely ill patients and among patients with cryptic septic shock. We implement our methodology in R, providing scripts in the supplementary material

Impact of night-time symptoms in COPD : a real-world study in five European countries

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Calf Finishing Versus Background/Yearling Finishing Systems: Where’s the Profit?

As corn prices have more than doubled in the last two years, cattle producers continually look for alternatives to finishing calves exclusively in feedlots on high concentrate rations. Historically, Nebraska feeders have placed a high proportion of fall-weaned calves on feed in October and November and sold them as fed cattle in May. However, as corn prices increase, livestock producers have more incentive to background calves during the winter and following summer on forages, and delay placing the cattle on feed until they are long yearlings at the end of the summer grazing season. Based on University of Nebraska–Lincoln research examining the performance of cattle in both types of systems from 1996 to 2007, the relative difference in returns to calf finishing versus yearling systems is relatively small (about $4.00/head) on average, but highly variable (Figure 1 on next page). Average returns to the calf and yearling system were$18.54/head and $14.33/head, but ranged from losses exceeding$177/head to profits above $347/head. In the ten years of the study where both systems were directly comparable, the yearling system was more profitable than calf finishing in four years and less profitable in six of the years

The Importance of Right to Science During Pandemics

Few articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) have received less attention than the right to science. All signatory members agreed that the right of everyone to “share in scientific advancement and its benefits” [Article 27(1)] is to be promoted and protected in every place around the globe (United Nations, 1948). The right to science is further secured in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). This not only reaffirms it as a basic human right, but also, upon coming into force in 1976, established the responsibility of governments to respect the right of everyone to “enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications”. States are required to conserve, develop and diffuse science, respect the freedom indispensable for scientific research, and encourage international contacts and cooperation in science [Article 15(1) (b)]. Of the 30 articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to science has perhaps the most complex history. Spanning more than seven decades, from its earliest expression in the UDHR in 1948 to a formal interpretation of the scope of its content by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) in 2020, the right to science was deliberated during a formative time in which knowledge and application of scientific advances became critical to all forms of everyday life. Fortunately, one of the outcomes of this extensive deliberation and analysis of the right to science is a framework that can be used by governments and other stakeholders to address pressing societal challenges. As of 2019, the most pressing social challenge is the pandemic caused by a coronavirus, commonly referred to as COVID-19. Within the proposed framework, the General Comment elaborates upon five elements that define the contours of the right to science, namely, availability, accessibility, acceptability, quality, and the protection of freedom of scientific research (CESCR, 2020, paras 16–20). Also within the framework, the General Comment lists four key measures that States must put in place to advance the right to participate in and enjoy the benefits of scientific progress (CESCR, 2020, paras 86–89). These include: (a) the establishment of a normative legal framework that protects against all forms of discrimination; (b) the development of a national plan to promote and disseminate scientific progress to all individuals, taking into account protections against misleading pseudoscience as well as ensuring ethical standards in science; (c) the identification of benchmarks to monitor the implementation and progress of the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress at the national level; and, (d) the establishment of judicial and administrative mechanisms that will allow victims of this right to access appropriate remedies. As we write this editorial (December 2020), the spread of coronavirus and its consequences are at the forefront of global public concern. A universal human rights approach appears well-suited to address a universal health care problem. Using the right to science to frame a universal response to the pandemic is a unique opportunity to elevate the status of this right and provide concrete examples of how it should be applied. This is especially critical given that many elements remain unimplemented and the potential is not fully realized. The pandemic has given us a chance to take this right seriously and examine how a more fully realized implementation of the right to science would allow a better response for the next pandemic. Accordingly, some of the elements associated with the right are elaborated upon here