| 1. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2015
-
In: Journal of High Energy Physics. - : Societa Italiana di Fisica. - 1029-8479 .- 1126-6708. ; :8
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 2. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2015
-
In: Journal of High Energy Physics. - : Societa Italiana di Fisica. - 1029-8479 .- 1126-6708. ; :9
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 3. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2015
-
In: Physical Review D (Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology). - 1550-2368 .- 1550-7998. ; 92:9
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2015
-
In: The European Physical Journal C. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1434-6052. ; 75:7
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 7. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2015
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 8. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2015
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 9. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2015
-
In: Journal of High Energy Physics. - : Springer. - 1029-8479 .- 1126-6708. ; :12
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 10. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2015
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 11. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2015
-
In: Physical Review Letters. - : American Physical Society. - 1079-7114 .- 0031-9007. ; 114:23
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 12. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2015
-
In: Physical Review Letters. - : American Physical Society. - 1079-7114 .- 0031-9007. ; 114:22
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 13. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2015
-
In: Physical Review Letters. - 1079-7114 .- 0031-9007. ; 115:13
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
|
|
| 16. |
|
|
| 17. |
|
|
| 18. |
|
|
| 19. |
|
|
| 20. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2015
-
In: Physical Review C (Nuclear Physics). - 0556-2813 .- 1089-490X. ; 92:3
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 21. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2015
-
In: The European Physical Journal C. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1434-6052. ; 75:7
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 22. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2015
-
In: The European Physical Journal C. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1434-6052. ; 75:9
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 23. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2015
-
In: Physical Review Letters. - 1079-7114 .- 0031-9007. ; 115:9
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 24. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2015
-
In: Physical Review D (Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology). - 1550-2368 .- 1550-7998. ; 92:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 25. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2015
-
In: Physical Review Letters. - 1079-7114 .- 0031-9007. ; 115:3
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 26. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2015
-
In: Physical Review Letters. - 1079-7114 .- 0031-9007. ; 115:3
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 27. |
|
|
| 28. |
|
|
| 29. |
|
|
| 30. |
|
|
| 31. |
|
|
| 32. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2015
-
In: Physical Review D (Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology). - 1550-2368 .- 1550-7998. ; 91:11, s. 112011-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 33. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2015
-
In: Journal of High Energy Physics. - : Springer-Verlag New York. - 1029-8479 .- 1126-6708. ; :9
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 34. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2015
-
In: Journal of High Energy Physics. - 1029-8479 .- 1126-6708. ; :8
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 35. |
- Niemi, MEK, et al.
(author)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 36. |
|
|
| 37. |
- Kanai, M, et al.
(author)
-
- 2023
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 38. |
|
|
| 39. |
- Bombarda, F., et al.
(author)
-
Runaway electron beam control
- 2019
-
In: Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion. - : IOP Publishing. - 1361-6587 .- 0741-3335. ; 61:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 40. |
-
- 2018
-
In: Nuclear Fusion. - : IOP Publishing. - 1741-4326 .- 0029-5515. ; 58:1
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 41. |
- Joffrin, E., et al.
(author)
-
Overview of the JET preparation for deuterium-tritium operation with the ITER like-wall
- 2019
-
In: Nuclear Fusion. - : IOP Publishing. - 1741-4326 .- 0029-5515. ; 59:11
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- For the past several years, the JET scientific programme (Pamela et al 2007 Fusion Eng. Des. 82 590) has been engaged in a multi-campaign effort, including experiments in D, H and T, leading up to 2020 and the first experiments with 50%/50% D-T mixtures since 1997 and the first ever D-T plasmas with the ITER mix of plasma-facing component materials. For this purpose, a concerted physics and technology programme was launched with a view to prepare the D-T campaign (DTE2). This paper addresses the key elements developed by the JET programme directly contributing to the D-T preparation. This intense preparation includes the review of the physics basis for the D-T operational scenarios, including the fusion power predictions through first principle and integrated modelling, and the impact of isotopes in the operation and physics of D-T plasmas (thermal and particle transport, high confinement mode (H-mode) access, Be and W erosion, fuel recovery, etc). This effort also requires improving several aspects of plasma operation for DTE2, such as real time control schemes, heat load control, disruption avoidance and a mitigation system (including the installation of a new shattered pellet injector), novel ion cyclotron resonance heating schemes (such as the three-ions scheme), new diagnostics (neutron camera and spectrometer, active Alfven eigenmode antennas, neutral gauges, radiation hard imaging systems...) and the calibration of the JET neutron diagnostics at 14 MeV for accurate fusion power measurement. The active preparation of JET for the 2020 D-T campaign provides an incomparable source of information and a basis for the future D-T operation of ITER, and it is also foreseen that a large number of key physics issues will be addressed in support of burning plasmas.
|
|
| 42. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(author)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
In: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
|
|
| 43. |
-
- 2019
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 44. |
- Murari, A., et al.
(author)
-
A control oriented strategy of disruption prediction to avoid the configuration collapse of tokamak reactors
- 2024
-
In: Nature Communications. - 2041-1723 .- 2041-1723. ; 15:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The objective of thermonuclear fusion consists of producing electricity from the coalescence of light nuclei in high temperature plasmas. The most promising route to fusion envisages the confinement of such plasmas with magnetic fields, whose most studied configuration is the tokamak. Disruptions are catastrophic collapses affecting all tokamak devices and one of the main potential showstoppers on the route to a commercial reactor. In this work we report how, deploying innovative analysis methods on thousands of JET experiments covering the isotopic compositions from hydrogen to full tritium and including the major D-T campaign, the nature of the various forms of collapse is investigated in all phases of the discharges. An original approach to proximity detection has been developed, which allows determining both the probability of and the time interval remaining before an incoming disruption, with adaptive, from scratch, real time compatible techniques. The results indicate that physics based prediction and control tools can be developed, to deploy realistic strategies of disruption avoidance and prevention, meeting the requirements of the next generation of devices.
|
|
| 45. |
|
|
| 46. |
|
|
| 47. |
|
|
| 48. |
|
|
| 49. |
-
- 2018
-
In: Nuclear Fusion. - : IOP Publishing. - 1741-4326 .- 0029-5515. ; 58:9
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 50. |
- Lozano, Rafael, et al.
(author)
-
Measuring progress from 1990 to 2017 and projecting attainment to 2030 of the health-related Sustainable Development Goals for 195 countries and territories: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017
- 2018
-
In: The Lancet. - : Elsevier. - 1474-547X .- 0140-6736. ; 392:10159, s. 2091-2138
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Efforts to establish the 2015 baseline and monitor early implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) highlight both great potential for and threats to improving health by 2030. To fully deliver on the SDG aim of “leaving no one behind”, it is increasingly important to examine the health-related SDGs beyond national-level estimates. As part of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2017 (GBD 2017), we measured progress on 41 of 52 health-related SDG indicators and estimated the health-related SDG index for 195 countries and territories for the period 1990–2017, projected indicators to 2030, and analysed global attainment. Methods: We measured progress on 41 health-related SDG indicators from 1990 to 2017, an increase of four indicators since GBD 2016 (new indicators were health worker density, sexual violence by non-intimate partners, population census status, and prevalence of physical and sexual violence [reported separately]). We also improved the measurement of several previously reported indicators. We constructed national-level estimates and, for a subset of health-related SDGs, examined indicator-level differences by sex and Socio-demographic Index (SDI) quintile. We also did subnational assessments of performance for selected countries. To construct the health-related SDG index, we transformed the value for each indicator on a scale of 0–100, with 0 as the 2·5th percentile and 100 as the 97·5th percentile of 1000 draws calculated from 1990 to 2030, and took the geometric mean of the scaled indicators by target. To generate projections through 2030, we used a forecasting framework that drew estimates from the broader GBD study and used weighted averages of indicator-specific and country-specific annualised rates of change from 1990 to 2017 to inform future estimates. We assessed attainment of indicators with defined targets in two ways: first, using mean values projected for 2030, and then using the probability of attainment in 2030 calculated from 1000 draws. We also did a global attainment analysis of the feasibility of attaining SDG targets on the basis of past trends. Using 2015 global averages of indicators with defined SDG targets, we calculated the global annualised rates of change required from 2015 to 2030 to meet these targets, and then identified in what percentiles the required global annualised rates of change fell in the distribution of country-level rates of change from 1990 to 2015. We took the mean of these global percentile values across indicators and applied the past rate of change at this mean global percentile to all health-related SDG indicators, irrespective of target definition, to estimate the equivalent 2030 global average value and percentage change from 2015 to 2030 for each indicator. Findings: The global median health-related SDG index in 2017 was 59·4 (IQR 35·4–67·3), ranging from a low of 11·6 (95% uncertainty interval 9·6–14·0) to a high of 84·9 (83·1–86·7). SDG index values in countries assessed at the subnational level varied substantially, particularly in China and India, although scores in Japan and the UK were more homogeneous. Indicators also varied by SDI quintile and sex, with males having worse outcomes than females for non-communicable disease (NCD) mortality, alcohol use, and smoking, among others. Most countries were projected to have a higher health-related SDG index in 2030 than in 2017, while country-level probabilities of attainment by 2030 varied widely by indicator. Under-5 mortality, neonatal mortality, maternal mortality ratio, and malaria indicators had the most countries with at least 95% probability of target attainment. Other indicators, including NCD mortality and suicide mortality, had no countries projected to meet corresponding SDG targets on the basis of projected mean values for 2030 but showed some probability of attainment by 2030. For some indicators, including child malnutrition, several infectious diseases, and most violence measures, the annualised rates of change required to meet SDG targets far exceeded the pace of progress achieved by any country in the recent past. We found that applying the mean global annualised rate of change to indicators without defined targets would equate to about 19% and 22% reductions in global smoking and alcohol consumption, respectively; a 47% decline in adolescent birth rates; and a more than 85% increase in health worker density per 1000 population by 2030. Interpretation: The GBD study offers a unique, robust platform for monitoring the health-related SDGs across demographic and geographic dimensions. Our findings underscore the importance of increased collection and analysis of disaggregated data and highlight where more deliberate design or targeting of interventions could accelerate progress in attaining the SDGs. Current projections show that many health-related SDG indicators, NCDs, NCD-related risks, and violence-related indicators will require a concerted shift away from what might have driven past gains—curative interventions in the case of NCDs—towards multisectoral, prevention-oriented policy action and investments to achieve SDG aims. Notably, several targets, if they are to be met by 2030, demand a pace of progress that no country has achieved in the recent past. The future is fundamentally uncertain, and no model can fully predict what breakthroughs or events might alter the course of the SDGs. What is clear is that our actions—or inaction—today will ultimately dictate how close the world, collectively, can get to leaving no one behind by 2030.
|
|
