| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Schael, S, et al.
(author)
-
Precision electroweak measurements on the Z resonance
- 2006
-
In: Physics Reports. - : Elsevier BV. - 0370-1573 .- 1873-6270. ; 427:5-6, s. 257-454
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- We report on the final electroweak measurements performed with data taken at the Z resonance by the experiments operating at the electron-positron colliders SLC and LEP. The data consist of 17 million Z decays accumulated by the ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL experiments at LEP, and 600 thousand Z decays by the SLID experiment using a polarised beam at SLC. The measurements include cross-sections, forward-backward asymmetries and polarised asymmetries. The mass and width of the Z boson, m(Z) and Gamma(Z), and its couplings to fermions, for example the p parameter and the effective electroweak mixing angle for leptons, are precisely measured: m(Z) = 91.1875 +/- 0.0021 GeV, Gamma(Z) = 2.4952 +/- 0.0023 GeV, rho(l) = 1.0050 +/- 0.0010, sin(2)theta(eff)(lept) = 0.23153 +/- 0.00016. The number of light neutrino species is determined to be 2.9840 +/- 0.0082, in agreement with the three observed generations of fundamental fermions. The results are compared to the predictions of the Standard Model (SM). At the Z-pole, electroweak radiative corrections beyond the running of the QED and QCD coupling constants are observed with a significance of five standard deviations, and in agreement with the Standard Model. Of the many Z-pole measurements, the forward-backward asymmetry in b-quark production shows the largest difference with respect to its SM expectation, at the level of 2.8 standard deviations. Through radiative corrections evaluated in the framework of the Standard Model, the Z-pole data are also used to predict the mass of the top quark, m(t) = 173(+10)(+13) GeV, and the mass of the W boson, m(W) = 80.363 +/- 0.032 GeV. These indirect constraints are compared to the direct measurements, providing a stringent test of the SM. Using in addition the direct measurements of m(t) and m(W), the mass of the as yet unobserved SM Higgs boson is predicted with a relative uncertainty of about 50% and found to be less than 285 GeV at 95% confidence level. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Glasbey, JC, et al.
(author)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 7. |
- Kanai, M, et al.
(author)
-
- 2023
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 8. |
- Abi-Dargham, A, et al.
(author)
-
Measurement of striatal and extrastriatal dopamine D1 receptor binding potential with [11C]NNC 112 in humans: validation and reproducibility
- 2000
-
In: Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism. - : SAGE Publications. - 0271-678X. ; 20:2, s. 225-243
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- To evaluate the postulated role of extrastriatal D1 receptors in human cognition and psychopathology requires an accurate and reliable method for quantification of these receptors in the living human brain. [11C]NNC 112 is a promising novel radiotracer for positron emission tomography imaging of the D1 receptor. The goal of this study was to develop and evaluate methods to derive D1 receptor parameters in striatal and extrastriatal regions of the human brain with [11C]NNC 112. Six healthy volunteers were studied twice. Two methods of analysis (kinetic and graphical) were applied to 12 regions (neocortical, limbic, and subcortical regions) to derive four outcome measures: total distribution volume, distribution volume ratio, binding potential (BP), and specific-to-nonspecific equilibrium partition coefficient ( k3/ k4). Both kinetic and graphic analyses provided BP and k3/ k4 values in good agreement with the known distribution of D1 receptors (striatum > limbic regions = neocortical regions > thalamus). The identifiability of outcome measures derived by kinetic analysis was excellent. Time-stability analysis indicated that 90 minutes of data collection generated stable outcome measures. Derivation of BP and k3/ k4 by kinetic analysis was highly reliable, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of 0.90 ± 0.06 (mean ± SD of 12 regions) and 0.84 ± 0.11, respectively. The reliability of these parameters derived by graphical analysis was lower, with ICCs of 0.72 ± 0.17 and 0.58 ± 0.21, respectively. Noise analysis revealed a noise-dependent bias in the graphical but not the kinetic analysis. In conclusion, kinetic analysis of [11C]NNC 112 uptake provides an appropriate method with which to derive D1 receptor parameters in regions with both high (striatal) and low (extrastriatal) D1 receptor density.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
- Gerkin, RC, et al.
(author)
-
The best COVID-19 predictor is recent smell loss: a cross-sectional study
- 2020
-
In: medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences. - : Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)abstract
- BackgroundCOVID-19 has heterogeneous manifestations, though one of the most common symptoms is a sudden loss of smell (anosmia or hyposmia). We investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19.MethodsThis preregistered, cross-sectional study used a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n=4148) or negative (C19-; n=546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified singular and cumulative predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery.ResultsBoth C19+ and C19-groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean±SD, C19+: -82.5±27.2 points; C19-: -59.8±37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both single and cumulative feature models (ROC AUC=0.72), with additional features providing negligible model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms, such as fever or cough. Olfactory recovery within 40 days was reported for ∼50% of participants and was best predicted by time since illness onset.ConclusionsAs smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19, we developed the ODoR-19 tool, a 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss. Numeric ratings ≤2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (4<OR<10), which can be deployed when viral lab tests are impractical or unavailable.
|
|
| 16. |
|
|
| 17. |
|
|
| 18. |
- Kaput, J, et al.
(author)
-
The case for strategic international alliances to harness nutritional genomics for public and personal health
- 2005
-
In: The British journal of nutrition. - : Cambridge University Press (CUP). - 0007-1145 .- 1475-2662. ; 94:5, s. 623-632
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Nutrigenomics is the study of how constituents of the diet interact with genes, and their products, to alter phenotype and, conversely, how genes and their products metabolise these constituents into nutrients, antinutrients, and bioactive compounds. Results from molecular and genetic epidemiological studies indicate that dietary unbalance can alter gene–nutrient interactions in ways that increase the risk of developing chronic disease. The interplay of human genetic variation and environmental factors will make identifying causative genes and nutrients a formidable, but not intractable, challenge. We provide specific recommendations for how to best meet this challenge and discuss the need for new methodologies and the use of comprehensive analyses of nutrient–genotype interactions involving large and diverse populations. The objective of the present paper is to stimulate discourse and collaboration among nutrigenomic researchers and stakeholders, a process that will lead to an increase in global health and wellness by reducing health disparities in developed and developing countries.
|
|
| 19. |
|
|
| 20. |
|
|
| 21. |
|
|
| 22. |
|
|
| 23. |
- Bravo, L, et al.
(author)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 24. |
- Tabiri, S, et al.
(author)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
