| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Abdalla, H., et al.
(författare)
-
TeV Emission of Galactic Plane Sources with HAWC and HESS
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Astrophysical Journal. - : Institute of Physics Publishing (IOPP). - 0004-637X .- 1538-4357. ; 917:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The High Altitude Water Cherenkov (HAWC) observatory and the High Energy Stereoscopic System (H.E.S.S.) are two leading instruments in the ground-based very-high-energy gamma-ray domain. HAWC employs the water Cherenkov detection (WCD) technique, while H.E.S.S. is an array of Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes (IACTs). The two facilities therefore differ in multiple aspects, including their observation strategy, the size of their field of view, and their angular resolution, leading to different analysis approaches. Until now, it has been unclear if the results of observations by both types of instruments are consistent: several of the recently discovered HAWC sources have been followed up by IACTs, resulting in a confirmed detection only in a minority of cases. With this paper, we go further and try to resolve the tensions between previous results by performing a new analysis of the H.E.S.S. Galactic plane survey data, applying an analysis technique comparable between H.E.S.S. and HAWC. Events above 1 TeV are selected for both data sets, the point-spread function of H.E.S.S. is broadened to approach that of HAWC, and a similar background estimation method is used. This is the first detailed comparison of the Galactic plane observed by both instruments. H.E.S.S. can confirm the gamma-ray emission of four HAWC sources among seven previously undetected by IACTs, while the three others have measured fluxes below the sensitivity of the H.E.S.S. data set. Remaining differences in the overall gamma-ray flux can be explained by the systematic uncertainties. Therefore, we confirm a consistent view of the gamma-ray sky between WCD and IACT techniques.
|
|
| 9. |
- Axfors, Cathrine, et al.
(författare)
-
Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19 : a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials
- 2021
-
Ingår i: BMC Infectious Diseases. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1471-2334. ; 21:1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, ). Methods: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I-2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care.
|
|
| 10. |
- Beal, Jacob, et al.
(författare)
-
Robust estimation of bacterial cell count from optical density
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Communications Biology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2399-3642. ; 3:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Optical density (OD) is widely used to estimate the density of cells in liquid culture, but cannot be compared between instruments without a standardized calibration protocol and is challenging to relate to actual cell count. We address this with an interlaboratory study comparing three simple, low-cost, and highly accessible OD calibration protocols across 244 laboratories, applied to eight strains of constitutive GFP-expressing E. coli. Based on our results, we recommend calibrating OD to estimated cell count using serial dilution of silica microspheres, which produces highly precise calibration (95.5% of residuals <1.2-fold), is easily assessed for quality control, also assesses instrument effective linear range, and can be combined with fluorescence calibration to obtain units of Molecules of Equivalent Fluorescein (MEFL) per cell, allowing direct comparison and data fusion with flow cytometry measurements: in our study, fluorescence per cell measurements showed only a 1.07-fold mean difference between plate reader and flow cytometry data.
|
|
