A comparison of input-output models: ghosh reduces to leontief (but "closing" ghosh makes it more plausible)

Ghosh's model is discussed in this paper under two alternative scenarios. In an open version we compare it with Leontief's model and prove that they reduce to each other under some specific productive conditions. We then move onto reconsidering Ghosh's model alleged implausibility and we do so reformulating the model to incorporate a closure rule. The closure solves, to some extent, the implausibility problem very clearly put out by Oosterhaven for then value-added is correctly computed and responsive to allocation changes resulting from supply shocks.

Lévy area for Gaussian processes: A double Wiener--Itô integral approach

"Vegeu el resum a l'inici del document del fitxer adjunt."

Is it redistribution or centralization? On the determinants of government investment in infrastructure

The dilemma efficiency versus equity, together with political partisan interests, has received increasing attention to explain the territorial allocation of investments. However, centralization intended to introduce or reinforce hierarchization in the political system has not been object as of now of empirical analysis. Our main contribution to the literature is providing evidence that meta-political objectives related to the ordering of political power and administration influence regional investment. In this way, we find evidence that network mode’s (roads and railways) investment programs are influenced by the centralization strategy of investing near to the political capital, while investment effort in no-network modes (airports and ports) appears to be positively related to distance. Since investment in surface transportation infrastructures is much higher than that in airports and ports, and taken into account that regions surrounding the political capital are poorer than the average, we suggest that centralization rather than redistribution has been the driver for the concentration of public investment on these regions.

Reduced ejection fraction after myocardial infarction: is it sufficient to justify implantation of a defibrillator?

BACKGROUND: Improved survival after prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) after myocardial infarction (MI) has been demonstrated in patients who experienced remote MIs in the 1990s. The absolute survival benefit conferred by this recommended strategy must be related to the current risk of arrhythmic death, which is evolving. This study evaluates the mortality rate in survivors of MI with impaired left ventricular function and its relation to pre-hospital discharge baseline characteristics. METHODS: The clinical records of patients who had sustained an acute MI between 1999 and 2000 and had been discharged from the hospital with an EF of < or = 40% were included. Baseline characteristics, drug prescriptions, and invasive procedures were recorded. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed using a primary end point of total mortality. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-five patients were included. During a median follow-up period of 30 months (interquartile range, 22 to 36 months) 18 patients died. The 1-year and 2-year mortality rates were 6.7% and 8.6%, respectively. Variables reflecting coronary artery disease and its management (ie, prior MI, acute reperfusion, and complete revascularization) had a greater impact on mortality than variables reflecting mechanical dysfunction (ie, EF and Killip class). CONCLUSIONS: The mortality rate among survivors of MIs with reduced EF was substantially lower than that reported in the 1990s. The strong decrease in the arrhythmic risk implies a proportional increase in the number of patients needed to treat with a prophylactic defibrillator to prevent one adverse event. The risk of an event may even be sufficiently low to limit the detectable benefit of defibrillators in patients with the prognostic features identified in our study. This argues for additional risk stratification prior to the prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator.

Sex determination: why so many ways of doing it?

Sexual reproduction is an ancient feature of life on earth, and the familiar X and Y chromosomes in humans and other model species have led to the impression that sex determination mechanisms are old and conserved. In fact, males and females are determined by diverse mechanisms that evolve rapidly in many taxa. Yet this diversity in primary sex-determining signals is coupled with conserved molecular pathways that trigger male or female development. Conflicting selection on different parts of the genome and on the two sexes may drive many of these transitions, but few systems with rapid turnover of sex determination mechanisms have been rigorously studied. Here we survey our current understanding of how and why sex determination evolves in animals and plants and identify important gaps in our knowledge that present exciting research opportunities to characterize the evolutionary forces and molecular pathways underlying the evolution of sex determination.

Phylogenetic Code in the Cloud - Can it Meet the Expectations?

Cloud computing has recently become very popular, and several bioinformatics applications exist already in that domain. The aim of this article is to analyse a current cloud system with respect to usability, benchmark its performance and compare its user friendliness with a conventional cluster job submission system. Given the current hype on the theme, user expectations are rather high, but current results show that neither the price/performance ratio nor the usage model is very satisfactory for large-scale embarrassingly parallel applications. However, for small to medium scale applications that require CPU time at certain peak times the cloud is a suitable alternative.

Seminar Report: Translating Research into Better Public Health: What Does it Mean for the CoE(NI)?

The workshop was attended by 13 people excluding facilitators. Most were from outside QUB (including Belfast City Council, NHSSB, BHSCT, Centre for Public Health, NICR, Institute of Agri-food and Land Use (QUB), etc).Programme was:Introductions Part 1: What’s “knowledge brokerage” all about?Presentation and Q&A (Kevin Balanda)Small group discussions Part 2: What the Centre of Excellence is doingPresentation and Q&A (Kevin Balanda)Small group discussions