| 1. |
- Beyer, J., et al.
(författare)
-
Maintaining success, reducing treatment burden, focusing on survivorship: highlights from the third European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Annals of Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1569-8041 .- 0923-7534. ; 24:4, s. 878-888
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- In November 2011, the Third European Consensus Conference on Diagnosis and Treatment of Germ-Cell Cancer (GCC) was held in Berlin, Germany. This third conference followed similar meetings in 2003 (Essen, Germany) and 2006 (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) [Schmoll H-J, Souchon R, Krege S et al. European consensus on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus Group (EGCCCG). Ann Oncol 2004; 15: 1377-1399; Krege S, Beyer J, Souchon R et al. European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the second meeting of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus group (EGCCCG): part I. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 478-496; Krege S, Beyer J, Souchon R et al. European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the second meeting of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus group (EGCCCG): part II. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 497-513]. A panel of 56 of 60 invited GCC experts from all across Europe discussed all aspects on diagnosis and treatment of GCC, with a particular focus on acute and late toxic effects as well as on survivorship issues. The panel consisted of oncologists, urologic surgeons, radiooncologists, pathologists and basic scientists, who are all actively involved in care of GCC patients. Panelists were chosen based on the publication activity in recent years. Before the meeting, panelists were asked to review the literature published since 2006 in 20 major areas concerning all aspects of diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of GCC patients, and to prepare an updated version of the previous recommendations to be discussed at the conference. In addition, similar to 50 E-vote questions were drafted and presented at the conference to address the most controversial areas for a poll of expert opinions. Here, we present the main recommendations and controversies of this meeting. The votes of the panelists are added as online supplements.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Van Der Weide, R.Y., et al.
(författare)
-
Innovation in mechanical weed control in crop rows
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Weed research (Print). - : Wiley. - 0043-1737 .- 1365-3180. ; 48:3, s. 215-224
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Weed control within crop rows is one of the main problems in organic farming. For centuries, different weed removal tools have been used to reduce weeds in the crop rows. Stimulated by the demand from organic farmers, research in several European countries over the last decade has focused on mechanisation using harrowing, torsion finger weeding and weeding with compressed air (Pneumat). Intelligent weeders are now being developed which offer more advanced ways to control weeds, including larger ones and to leave the crop plants unharmed. One of the first commercially available intelligent weeders, the Sarl Radis from France, has a simple crop detection system based on light interception, which guides a hoe in and out of the crop row, around the crop plants. The inclusion of innovative technologies, including advanced sensing and robotics, in combination with new cropping systems, might lead to a breakthrough in physical weed control in row crops leading to significant reductions, or even elimination, of the need for hand weeding. © 2008 The Authors.
|
|
| 6. |
- 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.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
