A Near-Real-Time Automatic Orbit Determination System for COSMIC and Its Follow-On Satellite Mission: Analysis of Orbit and Clock Errors on Radio Occultation

The COSMIC-2 mission is a follow-on mission of the Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere, and Climate (COSMIC) with an upgraded payload for improved radio occultation (RO) applications. The objective of this paper is to develop a near-real-time (NRT) orbit determination system, called NRT National Chiao Tung University (NCTU) system, to support COSMIC-2 in atmospheric applications and verify the orbit product of COSMIC. The system is capable of automatic determinations of the NRT GPS clocks and LEO orbit and clock. To assess the NRT (NCTU) system, we use eight days of COSMIC data (March 24-31, 2011), which contain a total of 331 GPS observation sessions and 12 393 RO observable files. The parallel scheduling for independent GPS and LEO estimations and automatic time matching improves the computational efficiency by 64% compared to the sequential scheduling. Orbit difference analyses suggest a 10-cm accuracy for the COSMIC orbits from the NRT (NCTU) system, and it is consistent as the NRT University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (URCA) system. The mean velocity accuracy from the NRT orbits of COSMIC is 0.168 mm/s, corresponding to an error of about 0.051 μrad in the bending angle. The rms differences in the NRT COSMIC clock and in GPS clocks between the NRT (NCTU) and the postprocessing products are 3.742 and 1.427 ns. The GPS clocks determined from a partial ground GPS network [from NRT (NCTU)] and a full one [from NRT (UCAR)] result in mean rms frequency stabilities of 6.1E-12 and 2.7E-12, respectively, corresponding to range fluctuations of 5.5 and 2.4 cm and bending angle errors of 3.75 and 1.66 μrad .

A hybrid method for large-scale short-term scheduling of make-and-pack production processes

Due to the ongoing trend towards increased product variety, fast-moving consumer goods such as food and beverages, pharmaceuticals, and chemicals are typically manufactured through so-called make-and-pack processes. These processes consist of a make stage, a pack stage, and intermediate storage facilities that decouple these two stages. In operations scheduling, complex technological constraints must be considered, e.g., non-identical parallel processing units, sequence-dependent changeovers, batch splitting, no-wait restrictions, material transfer times, minimum storage times, and finite storage capacity. The short-term scheduling problem is to compute a production schedule such that a given demand for products is fulfilled, all technological constraints are met, and the production makespan is minimised. A production schedule typically comprises 500–1500 operations. Due to the problem size and complexity of the technological constraints, the performance of known mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) formulations and heuristic approaches is often insufficient. We present a hybrid method consisting of three phases. First, the set of operations is divided into several subsets. Second, these subsets are iteratively scheduled using a generic and flexible MILP formulation. Third, a novel critical path-based improvement procedure is applied to the resulting schedule. We develop several strategies for the integration of the MILP model into this heuristic framework. Using these strategies, high-quality feasible solutions to large-scale instances can be obtained within reasonable CPU times using standard optimisation software. We have applied the proposed hybrid method to a set of industrial problem instances and found that the method outperforms state-of-the-art methods.

[CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (Chinese version)]

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Terutroban versus aspirin in patients with cerebral ischaemic events (PERFORM): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial

Patients with ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) are at high risk of recurrent stroke or other cardiovascular events. We compared the selective thromboxane-prostaglandin receptor antagonist terutroban with aspirin in the prevention of cerebral and cardiovascular ischaemic events in patients with a recent non-cardioembolic cerebral ischaemic event.