| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Bale, S. D., et al.
(författare)
-
The FIELDS Instrument Suite for Solar Probe Plus
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Space Science Reviews. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0038-6308 .- 1572-9672. ; 204:1-4, s. 49-82
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- NASA's Solar Probe Plus (SPP) mission will make the first in situ measurements of the solar corona and the birthplace of the solar wind. The FIELDS instrument suite on SPP will make direct measurements of electric and magnetic fields, the properties of in situ plasma waves, electron density and temperature profiles, and interplanetary radio emissions, amongst other things. Here, we describe the scientific objectives targeted by the SPP/FIELDS instrument, the instrument design itself, and the instrument concept of operations and planned data products.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Pearce, Neil E, et al.
(författare)
-
IARC Monographs : 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives. - : Environmental Health Perspectives. - 0091-6765 .- 1552-9924. ; 123:6, s. 507-514
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Recently the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that IARC Working Groups' failures to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans.OBJECTIVES: The authors of this paper are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We have examined here criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. We review the history of IARC evaluations and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.DISCUSSION: We conclude that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various discipline and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed.CONCLUSIONS: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public's health.
|
|
| 5. |
- Allori, AC, et al.
(författare)
-
A Standard Set of Outcome Measures for the Comprehensive Appraisal of Cleft Care
- 2017
-
Ingår i: The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association. - : SAGE Publications. - 1545-1569. ; 54:5, s. 540-554
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Care of the patient with cleft lip and/or palate remains complex. Prior attempts at aggregating data to study the effectiveness of specific interventions or overall treatment protocols have been hindered by a lack of data standards. There exists a critical need to better define the outcomes- particularly those that matter most to patients and their families-and to standardize the methods by which these outcomes will be measured. This report summarizes the recommendations of an international, multidisciplinary working group with regard to which outcomes a typical cleft team could track, how those outcomes could be measured and recorded, and what strategies may be employed to sustainably implement a system for prospective data collection. It is only by agreeing on a common, standard set of outcome measures for the comprehensive appraisal of cleft care that intercenter comparisons can become possible. This is important for quality-improvement endeavors, comparative effectiveness research, and value-based health-care reform.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
