| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Jaffee, E. M., et al.
(författare)
-
Future cancer research priorities in the USA: a Lancet Oncology Commission
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Lancet Oncology. - 1470-2045. ; 18:11
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- We are in the midst of a technological revolution that is providing new insights into human biology and cancer. In this era of big data, we are amassing large amounts of information that is transforming how we approach cancer treatment and prevention. Enactment of the Cancer Moonshot within the 21st Century Cures Act in the USA arrived at a propitious moment in the advancement of knowledge, providing nearly US$ 2 billion of funding for cancer research and precision medicine. In 2016, the Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP) set out a roadmap of recommendations designed to exploit new advances in cancer diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. Those recommendations provided a high-level view of how to accelerate the conversion of new scientific discoveries into effective treatments and prevention for cancer. The US National Cancer Institute is already implementing some of those recommendations. As experts in the priority areas identified by the BRP, we bolster those recommendations to implement this important scientific roadmap. In this Commission, we examine the BRP recommendations in greater detail and expand the discussion to include additional priority areas, including surgical oncology, radiation oncology, imaging, health systems and health disparities, regulation and financing, population science, and oncopolicy. We prioritise areas of research in the USA that we believe would accelerate efforts to benefit patients with cancer. Finally, we hope the recommendations in this report will facilitate new international collaborations to further enhance global efforts in cancer control.
|
|
| 3. |
- Malehmir, Alireza, et al.
(författare)
-
Near-Surface Geophysical Characterization of Areas Prone to Natural Hazards : A Review of the Current and Perspective on the Future
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Advances in Geophysics. - : Elsevier. - 0065-2687 .- 2162-7622. ; 57, s. 51-146
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Natural hazards such as landslides, floods, rockfalls, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sinkholes, and snow avalanches represent potential risks to our infrastructures, properties, and lives. That potential will continue to escalate with current and continued human encroachment into risk areas. With the help of geophysical techniques many of those risks can be better understood and quantified, thereby minimized and at least partly mitigated through accurate, site-specific, and proper planning and engineering. On occasions these hazards simply cannot be avoided, but better characterization and therefore understanding of the subsurface geology and natural processes responsible for the threats is possible through integration of various cost-effective geophysical methods with relevant geotechnical, geomechanical, and hydrogeological methods. With the enhanced characterization possible when geophysics is incorporated into natural hazard analysis, potential risks can be better quantified and remediation plans tuned to minimize the threat most natural hazards present to civilizations. In this article we will first review common geophysical methods that can be and have been utilized in studying natural hazard prone areas, then we provide selected case studies and approaches using predominantly our own examples, and finally a look into the future detailing how these methods and technologies can be better implemented and thereby more time- and cost-effective and provide improved results.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Madsen, L. M., et al.
(författare)
-
Comparison of tTEM-IP and ERT-IP : cases from mine tailing sites in Sweden
- 2023
-
Ingår i: 29th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Held at Near Surface Geoscience Conference and Exhibition 2023, NSG 2023. - 9789462824607
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- The induced polarization (IP) effect can be studied using both galvanic and inductive methods. Here we study IP and its manifestation in transient electromagnetic (TEM) data from a tTEM system and in time-domain electric resistivity tomography (ERT) data. Since the two methods are sensitive to two different frequency ranges, a direct IP spectrum comparison is not possible. Instead, we assess the IP resolution and compare both resistivity and chargeability inversion results. We show that tTEM data recorded in highly resistive environments with high IP, suffer from fast-decaying transients and sign-changes, which makes it difficult to resolve the true resistivity and IP model due equivalences. A comparison of the maximum phase shifts from two mine tailing sites shows that the chargeability structures gained from the inversion of tTEM data to some degree follow the structures of the chargeability resolved from the ERT data. However, the magnitudes of the resolved phases are generally below 50 mRad for ERT, but up to 500 mRad for tTEM. This indicates that different polarization mechanisms are dominating within the different frequency ranges of the tTEM and ERT methods.
|
|
