| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Abdo, A. A., et al.
(author)
-
FERMI LARGE AREA TELESCOPE OBSERVATIONS OF THE VELA PULSAR
- 2009
-
In: Astrophysical Journal. - 0004-637X .- 1538-4357. ; 696:2, s. 1084-1093
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The Vela pulsar is the brightest persistent source in the GeV sky and thus is the traditional first target for new gamma-ray observatories. We report here on initial Fermi Large Area Telescope observations during verification phase pointed exposure and early sky survey scanning. We have used the Vela signal to verify Fermi timing and angular resolution. The high-quality pulse profile, with some 32,400 pulsed photons at E >= 0.03 GeV, shows new features, including pulse structure as fine as 0.3 ms and a distinct third peak, which shifts in phase with energy. We examine the high-energy behavior of the pulsed emission; initial spectra suggest a phase-averaged power-law index of Gamma = 1.51(-0.04)(+0.05) with an exponential cutoff at E-c = 2.9 +/- 0.1 GeV. Spectral fits with generalized cutoffs of the form e(-(E/Ec)b) require b <= 1, which is inconsistent with magnetic pair attenuation, and thus favor outer-magnetosphere emission models. Finally, we report on upper limits to any unpulsed component, as might be associated with a surrounding pulsar wind nebula.
|
|
| 3. |
- Wolever, Thomas M S, et al.
(author)
-
Measuring the glycemic index of foods: interlaboratory study.
- 2008
-
In: The American journal of clinical nutrition. - 0002-9165 .- 1938-3207. ; 87:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Many laboratories offer glycemic index (GI) services. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the performance of the method used to measure GI. DESIGN: The GI of cheese-puffs and fruit-leather (centrally provided) was measured in 28 laboratories (n=311 subjects) by using the FAO/WHO method. The laboratories reported the results of their calculations and sent the raw data for recalculation centrally. RESULTS: Values for the incremental area under the curve (AUC) reported by 54% of the laboratories differed from central calculations. Because of this and other differences in data analysis, 19% of reported food GI values differed by >5 units from those calculated centrally. GI values in individual subjects were unrelated to age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index, or AUC but were negatively related to within-individual variation (P=0.033) expressed as the CV of the AUC for repeated reference food tests (refCV). The between-laboratory GI values (mean+/-SD) for cheese-puffs and fruit-leather were 74.3+/-10.5 and 33.2+/-7.2, respectively. The mean laboratory GI was related to refCV (P=0.003) and the type of restrictions on alcohol consumption before the test (P=0.006, r2=0.509 for model). The within-laboratory SD of GI was related to refCV (P<0.001), the glucose analysis method (P=0.010), whether glucose measures were duplicated (P=0.008), and restrictions on dinner the night before (P=0.013, r2=0.810 for model). CONCLUSIONS: The between-laboratory SD of the GI values is approximately 9. Standardized data analysis and low within-subject variation (refCV<30%) are required for accuracy. The results suggest that common misconceptions exist about which factors do and do not need to be controlled to improve precision. Controlled studies and cost-benefit analyses are needed to optimize GI methodology. The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00260858.
|
|
