| 1. |
- Tran, K. B., et al.
(författare)
-
The global burden of cancer attributable to risk factors, 2010-19: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Lancet. - 0140-6736. ; 400:10352, s. 563-591
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Understanding the magnitude of cancer burden attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors is crucial for development of effective prevention and mitigation strategies. We analysed results from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 to inform cancer control planning efforts globally. Methods The GBD 2019 comparative risk assessment framework was used to estimate cancer burden attributable to behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risk factors. A total of 82 risk-outcome pairs were included on the basis of the World Cancer Research Fund criteria. Estimated cancer deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in 2019 and change in these measures between 2010 and 2019 are presented. Findings Globally, in 2019, the risk factors included in this analysis accounted for 4.45 million (95% uncertainty interval 4.01-4.94) deaths and 105 million (95.0-116) DALYs for both sexes combined, representing 44.4% (41.3-48.4) of all cancer deaths and 42.0% (39.1-45.6) of all DALYs. There were 2.88 million (2.60-3.18) risk-attributable cancer deaths in males (50.6% [47.8-54.1] of all male cancer deaths) and 1.58 million (1.36-1.84) risk-attributable cancer deaths in females (36.3% [32.5-41.3] of all female cancer deaths). The leading risk factors at the most detailed level globally for risk-attributable cancer deaths and DALYs in 2019 for both sexes combined were smoking, followed by alcohol use and high BMI. Risk-attributable cancer burden varied by world region and Socio-demographic Index (SDI), with smoking, unsafe sex, and alcohol use being the three leading risk factors for risk-attributable cancer DALYs in low SDI locations in 2019, whereas DALYs in high SDI locations mirrored the top three global risk factor rankings. From 2010 to 2019, global risk-attributable cancer deaths increased by 20.4% (12.6-28.4) and DALYs by 16.8% (8.8-25.0), with the greatest percentage increase in metabolic risks (34.7% [27.9-42.8] and 33.3% [25.8-42.0]). Interpretation The leading risk factors contributing to global cancer burden in 2019 were behavioural, whereas metabolic risk factors saw the largest increases between 2010 and 2019. Reducing exposure to these modifiable risk factors would decrease cancer mortality and DALY rates worldwide, and policies should be tailored appropriately to local cancer risk factor burden. Copyright (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Adamo, Nasrat, et al.
(författare)
-
Dams Safety : Review of Satellite Remote Sensing Applications to Dams and Reservoirs
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of Earth Sciences and Geotechnical Engineering. - UK : Scientific Press International Limited. - 1792-9040 .- 1792-9660. ; 11:1, s. 347-438
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Remote sensing is the collection and interpretation of information of an object, areaor phenomenon by a recording device that is not in physical or intimate contact with the object or phenomenon under study. It generally refers to the use of satellite borne or airborne sensors to capture the spectral and spatial relations of objects and materials on Earth from the space. This is done by sensing and recording reflected or emitted electromagnetic radiation from the objects. A brief history of satellite remote sensing is given in this review but the bulk of it is devoted to the scientific satellites launched into orbit and their sensors tracking, and presenting changes in water resources fields. The used technologies and satellite systems for monitoring movements and changes include American GNSS, GPS, the Russian GLONASS, Europe’s European Satellite Navigation System (GALILEO), China’s COMPASS/BeiDou, the Indian (IRNSS); Japan’s (QZSS) and many others. Details are presented on the present (LANDSAT), the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), as well as Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), and RADARSAT, JERS‐1, and ERS, which are developed by various countries, especially the USA. These sensors have the refined capability of providing estimates of variables, which depending on the purpose and design of the sensor, can follow critical issues related to water management problems. This review presents examples of actual studies carried out including; building databases of small dams and lakes on regional scale, derivation of volume vs. elevation and surface area vs. elevation of hundreds of reservoirs around the world, various bathymetric reservoir surveys, siltation of reservoirs and catchment areas erosion problems, monitoring of water quality changes, and above all monitoring dam deformation and stability problems of dams. The presented case studies cover the use of these different sensor together with the imagery used, their sources, methods of interpretation, validation and gives presentation of the end results. This review, which is only a very brief presentation of satellite remote sensing applications concludes that; in spite of the large volume of research done on this subject so far, which this review cites some of them , the expected future developments in satellite remote sensing technology coupled with advances in algorithms and models used in refining satellite imagery and validating the results will bring more accurate results and less laborious treatment work in addition to wider scope of applications.
|
|
| 4. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
|
|
