| 1. |
- Bruzzi, M, et al.
(författare)
-
Radiation-hard semiconductor detectors for SuperLHC
- 2005
-
Ingår i: Nuclear Instruments & Methods in Physics Research. Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors, and Associated Equipment. - : Elsevier BV. - 0167-5087 .- 0168-9002. ; 541:1-2, s. 189-201
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- An option of increasing the luminosity of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN to 1035 cm-2 s-1 has been envisaged to extend the physics reach of the machine. An efficient tracking down to a few centimetres from the interaction point will be required to exploit the physics potential of the upgraded LHC. As a consequence, the semiconductor detectors close to the interaction region will receive severe doses of fast hadron irradiation and the inner tracker detectors will need to survive fast hadron fluences of up to above 1016cm-2. The CERN-RD50 project "Development of Radiation Hard Semiconductor Devices for Very High Luminosity Colliders" has been established in 2002 to explore detector materials and technologies that will allow to operate devices up to, or beyond, this limit. The strategies followed by RD50 to enhance the radiation tolerance include the development of new or defect engineered detector materials (SiC, GaN, Czochralski and epitaxial silicon, oxygen enriched Float Zone silicon), the improvement of present detector designs and the understanding of the microscopic defects causing the degradation of the irradiated detectors. The latest advancements within the RD50 collaboration on radiation hard semiconductor detectors will be reviewed and discussed in this work.
|
|
| 2. |
- Amsler, C., et al.
(författare)
-
Review of particle physics
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Physics Letters. Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics. - : Elsevier BV. - 0370-2693 .- 1873-2445. ; 667:1-5, s. 1-1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- This biennial Review summarizes much of particle physics. Using data from previous editions., plus 2778 new measurements from 645 papers, we list, evaluate, and average measured properties of gauge bosons, leptons, quarks, mesons, and baryons. We also summarize searches for hypothetical particles such as Higgs bosons, heavy neutrinos, and supersymmetric particles. All the particle properties and search limits are listed in Summary Tables. We also give numerous tables, figures, formulae, and reviews of topics such as the Standard Model, particle detectors., probability, and statistics. Among the 108 reviews are many that are new or heavily revised including those on CKM quark-mixing matrix, V-ud & V-us, V-cb & V-ub, top quark, muon anomalous magnetic moment, extra dimensions, particle detectors, cosmic background radiation, dark matter, cosmological parameters, and big bang cosmology.
|
|
| 3. |
- Nakamura, K., et al.
(författare)
-
Review Of Particle Physics
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics. - 0954-3899 .- 1361-6471. ; 37:7A, s. 1-1422
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- This biennial Review summarizes much of particle physics. Using data from previous editions, plus 2158 new measurements from 551 papers, we list, evaluate, and average measured properties of gauge bosons, leptons, quarks, mesons, and baryons. We also summarize searches for hypothetical particles such as Higgs bosons, heavy neutrinos, and supersymmetric particles. All the particle properties and search limits are listed in Summary Tables. We also give numerous tables, figures, formulae, and reviews of topics such as the Standard Model, particle detectors, probability, and statistics. Among the 108 reviews are many that are new or heavily revised including those on neutrino mass, mixing, and oscillations, QCD, top quark, CKM quark-mixing matrix, V-ud & V-us, V-cb & V-ub, fragmentation functions, particle detectors for accelerator and non-accelerator physics, magnetic monopoles, cosmological parameters, and big bang cosmology. A booklet is available containing the Summary Tables and abbreviated versions of some of the other sections of this full Review. All tables, listings, and reviews (and errata) are also available on the Particle Data Group website: http://pdg.1b1.gov.
|
|
| 4. |
- Yao, W-M, et al.
(författare)
-
Review of Particle Physics
- 2006
-
Ingår i: Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics. - : IOP Publishing. - 0954-3899 .- 1361-6471. ; 33:1, s. 1-1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Niederberger, C., et al.
(författare)
-
Forty years of IVF
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Fertility and Sterility. - : Elsevier BV. - 0015-0282. ; 110:2
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This monograph, written by the pioneers of IVF and reproductive medicine, celebrates the history, achievements, and medical advancements made over the last 40 years in this rapidly growing field.
|
|
| 7. |
- Duffy, J. M. N., et al.
(författare)
-
Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Human Reproduction. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0268-1161 .- 1460-2350. ; 35:12, s. 2725-2734
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- STUDY QUESTION: Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection and reporting across future infertility research be developed? SUMMARY ANSWER: A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition and an arbitrary consensus threshold. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Fertility and Sterility and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set.
|
|
| 8. |
- Duffy, J. M. N., et al.
(författare)
-
Top 10 priorities for future infertility research: an international consensus development study
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Human Reproduction. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0268-1161 .- 1460-2350. ; 35:12, s. 2715-2724
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- STUDY QUESTION: Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified? SUMMARY ANSWER: The top 10 research priorities for the four areas of male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care for people with fertility problems were identified. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is a barrier to improving the care received by those people with fertility problems. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Potential research questions were collated from an initial international survey, a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane systematic reviews. A rationalized list of confirmed research uncertainties was prioritized in an interim international survey. Prioritized research uncertainties were discussed during a consensus development meeting. Using a formal consensus development method, the modified nominal group technique, diverse stakeholders identified the top 10 research priorities for each of the categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others (healthcare funders, healthcare providers, healthcare regulators, research funding bodies and researchers) were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The initial survey was completed by 388 participants from 40 countries, and 423 potential research questions were submitted. Fourteen clinical practice guidelines and 162 Cochrane systematic reviews identified a further 236 potential research questions. A rationalized list of 231 confirmed research uncertainties was entered into an interim prioritization survey completed by 317 respondents from 43 countries. The top 10 research priorities for each of the four categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility (including age-related infertility, ovarian cysts, uterine cavity abnormalities and tubal factor infertility), medically assisted reproduction (including ovarian stimulation, IUI and IVF) and ethics, access and organization of care were identified during a consensus development meeting involving 41 participants from I I countries. These research priorities were diverse and seek answers to questions regarding prevention, treatment and the longer-term impact of infertility. They highlight the importance of pursuing research which has often been overlooked, including addressing the emotional and psychological impact of infertility, improving access to fertility treatment, particularly in lower resource settings and securing appropriate regulation. Addressing these priorities will require diverse research methodologies, including laboratory-based science, qualitative and quantitative research and population science. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, methodological decisions informed by professional judgment and arbitrary consensus definitions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We anticipate that identified research priorities, developed to specifically highlight the most pressing clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others, will help research funding organizations and researchers to develop their future research agenda.
|
|
| 9. |
- Duffy, J. M. N., et al.
(författare)
-
Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Human Reproduction. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0268-1161 .- 1460-2350. ; 35:12, s. 2735-2745
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- STUDY QUESTION: Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting? SUMMARY ANSWER: Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements and a standardized reporting table have been developed. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus development methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals have committed to implementing this core outcome set.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
