| 1. |
- Aaltonen, T., et al.
(författare)
-
Tevatron Run II combination of the effective leptonic electroweak mixing angle
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Physical Review D. - : AMER PHYSICAL SOC. - 2470-0010 .- 2470-0029. ; 97:11
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Drell-Yan lepton pairs produced in the process p (p) over bar -> l(+)l(-) + X through an intermediate gamma*/Z boson have an asymmetry in their angular distribution related to the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the electroweak force and the associated mixing of its neutral gauge bosons. The CDF and D0 experiments have measured the effective-leptonic electroweak mixing parameter sin(2) theta(lept)(eff) using electron and muon pairs selected from the full Tevatron proton-antiproton data sets collected in 2001-2011, corresponding to 9-10 fb(-1) of integrated luminosity. The combination of these measurements yields the most precise result from hadron colliders, sin(2)theta(lept)(eff) = 0.23148 +/- 0.00033. This result is consistent with, and approaches in precision, the best measurements from electron-positron colliders. The standard model inference of the on-shell electroweak mixing parameter sin(2) theta(W), or equivalently the W-boson mass M-W, using the ZFITTER software package yields sin(2) theta(W) = 0.22324 +/- 0.00033 or equivalently, M-W = 80.367 +/- 0.017 GeV/c(2).
|
|
| 2. |
- Aaltonen, T., et al.
(författare)
-
Combined Forward-Backward Asymmetry Measurements in Top-Antitop Quark Production at the Tevatron
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Physical Review Letters. - : AMER PHYSICAL SOC. - 0031-9007 .- 1079-7114. ; 120:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The CDF and D0 experiments at the Fermilab Tevatron have measured the asymmetry between yields of forward- and backward-produced top and antitop quarks based on their rapidity difference and the asymmetry between their decay leptons. These measurements use the full data sets collected in proton-antiproton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of root s = 1.96 TeV. We report the results of combinations of the inclusive asymmetries and their differential dependencies on relevant kinematic quantities. The combined inclusive asymmetry is A(FB)(t (t) over bar) = 0.128 +/- 0.025. The combined inclusive and differential asymmetries are consistent with recent standard model predictions.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Pulit, S. L., et al.
(författare)
-
Atrial fibrillation genetic risk differentiates cardioembolic stroke from other stroke subtypes
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Neurology-Genetics. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 2376-7839. ; 4:6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective We sought to assess whether genetic risk factors for atrial fibrillation (AF) can explain cardioembolic stroke risk. We evaluated genetic correlations between a previous genetic study of AF and AF in the presence of cardioembolic stroke using genome-wide genotypes from the Stroke Genetics Network (N = 3,190 AF cases, 3,000 cardioembolic stroke cases, and 28,026 referents). We tested whether a previously validated AF polygenic risk score (PRS) associated with cardioembolic and other stroke subtypes after accounting for AF clinical risk factors. We observed a strong correlation between previously reported genetic risk for AF, AF in the presence of stroke, and cardioembolic stroke (Pearson r = 0.77 and 0.76, respectively, across SNPs with p < 4.4 x 10(-4) in the previous AF meta-analysis). An AF PRS, adjusted for clinical AF risk factors, was associated with cardioembolic stroke (odds ratio [OR] per SD = 1.40, p = 1.45 x 10(-48)), explaining similar to 20% of the heritable component of cardioembolic stroke risk. The AF PRS was also associated with stroke of undetermined cause (OR per SD = 1.07,p = 0.004), but no other primary stroke subtypes (all p > 0.1). Genetic risk of AF is associated with cardioembolic stroke, independent of clinical risk factors. Studies are warranted to determine whether AF genetic risk can serve as a biomarker for strokes caused by AF.
|
|
| 5. |
- Arndt, D. S., et al.
(författare)
-
STATE OF THE CLIMATE IN 2017
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Bulletin of The American Meteorological Society - (BAMS). - : American Meteorological Society. - 0003-0007 .- 1520-0477. ; 99:8, s. S1-S310
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Lozano, Rafael, et al.
(författare)
-
Measuring progress from 1990 to 2017 and projecting attainment to 2030 of the health-related Sustainable Development Goals for 195 countries and territories: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017
- 2018
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. - : Elsevier. - 1474-547X .- 0140-6736. ; 392:10159, s. 2091-2138
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Efforts to establish the 2015 baseline and monitor early implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) highlight both great potential for and threats to improving health by 2030. To fully deliver on the SDG aim of “leaving no one behind”, it is increasingly important to examine the health-related SDGs beyond national-level estimates. As part of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2017 (GBD 2017), we measured progress on 41 of 52 health-related SDG indicators and estimated the health-related SDG index for 195 countries and territories for the period 1990–2017, projected indicators to 2030, and analysed global attainment. Methods: We measured progress on 41 health-related SDG indicators from 1990 to 2017, an increase of four indicators since GBD 2016 (new indicators were health worker density, sexual violence by non-intimate partners, population census status, and prevalence of physical and sexual violence [reported separately]). We also improved the measurement of several previously reported indicators. We constructed national-level estimates and, for a subset of health-related SDGs, examined indicator-level differences by sex and Socio-demographic Index (SDI) quintile. We also did subnational assessments of performance for selected countries. To construct the health-related SDG index, we transformed the value for each indicator on a scale of 0–100, with 0 as the 2·5th percentile and 100 as the 97·5th percentile of 1000 draws calculated from 1990 to 2030, and took the geometric mean of the scaled indicators by target. To generate projections through 2030, we used a forecasting framework that drew estimates from the broader GBD study and used weighted averages of indicator-specific and country-specific annualised rates of change from 1990 to 2017 to inform future estimates. We assessed attainment of indicators with defined targets in two ways: first, using mean values projected for 2030, and then using the probability of attainment in 2030 calculated from 1000 draws. We also did a global attainment analysis of the feasibility of attaining SDG targets on the basis of past trends. Using 2015 global averages of indicators with defined SDG targets, we calculated the global annualised rates of change required from 2015 to 2030 to meet these targets, and then identified in what percentiles the required global annualised rates of change fell in the distribution of country-level rates of change from 1990 to 2015. We took the mean of these global percentile values across indicators and applied the past rate of change at this mean global percentile to all health-related SDG indicators, irrespective of target definition, to estimate the equivalent 2030 global average value and percentage change from 2015 to 2030 for each indicator. Findings: The global median health-related SDG index in 2017 was 59·4 (IQR 35·4–67·3), ranging from a low of 11·6 (95% uncertainty interval 9·6–14·0) to a high of 84·9 (83·1–86·7). SDG index values in countries assessed at the subnational level varied substantially, particularly in China and India, although scores in Japan and the UK were more homogeneous. Indicators also varied by SDI quintile and sex, with males having worse outcomes than females for non-communicable disease (NCD) mortality, alcohol use, and smoking, among others. Most countries were projected to have a higher health-related SDG index in 2030 than in 2017, while country-level probabilities of attainment by 2030 varied widely by indicator. Under-5 mortality, neonatal mortality, maternal mortality ratio, and malaria indicators had the most countries with at least 95% probability of target attainment. Other indicators, including NCD mortality and suicide mortality, had no countries projected to meet corresponding SDG targets on the basis of projected mean values for 2030 but showed some probability of attainment by 2030. For some indicators, including child malnutrition, several infectious diseases, and most violence measures, the annualised rates of change required to meet SDG targets far exceeded the pace of progress achieved by any country in the recent past. We found that applying the mean global annualised rate of change to indicators without defined targets would equate to about 19% and 22% reductions in global smoking and alcohol consumption, respectively; a 47% decline in adolescent birth rates; and a more than 85% increase in health worker density per 1000 population by 2030. Interpretation: The GBD study offers a unique, robust platform for monitoring the health-related SDGs across demographic and geographic dimensions. Our findings underscore the importance of increased collection and analysis of disaggregated data and highlight where more deliberate design or targeting of interventions could accelerate progress in attaining the SDGs. Current projections show that many health-related SDG indicators, NCDs, NCD-related risks, and violence-related indicators will require a concerted shift away from what might have driven past gains—curative interventions in the case of NCDs—towards multisectoral, prevention-oriented policy action and investments to achieve SDG aims. Notably, several targets, if they are to be met by 2030, demand a pace of progress that no country has achieved in the recent past. The future is fundamentally uncertain, and no model can fully predict what breakthroughs or events might alter the course of the SDGs. What is clear is that our actions—or inaction—today will ultimately dictate how close the world, collectively, can get to leaving no one behind by 2030.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
