Up-conversion properties of lanthanide-organic frameworks and how to track ammunitions using these materials

This manuscript reports the first example of up-conversion properties involving Yb3+ and Tb3+ ions in five isostructural Lanthanide-Organic Frameworks (LnOFs), herein designated as UCMarker-1 to UCMarker-5, respectively, and their application as optical probes for the identification of gunshot residues (GSRs) and the ammunition encryption procedure. The excitation of the Yb3+2 F-7/2 <-> F-2(5/2) transition (980 nm) at room temperature leads to visible up-conversion (UC) emission of Tb3+ D-5(4) -> F-7(J). The GSR and lead-free primer residues are easily identified upon UV radiation (lambda = 254 nm). These results prove that the exploration of LnOFs to identify GSR is attractive for the identification of ammunition origins or caliber recognition.

Tb3+-> Eu3+ Energy Transfer in Mixed-Lanthanide-Organic Frameworks

In this work, we report a theoretical and experimental investigation of the energy transfer mechanism in two isotypical 2D coordination polymers, (infinity)[(Tb1-xEux)(DPA)(HDPA)], where H(2)DPA is pyridine 2,6-dicarboxylic acid and x = 0.05 or 0.50. Emission spectra of (infinity)[(Tb0.95Eu0.05)(DPA)(HDPA)] and (infinity)[(Tb0.5Eu0.5)(DPA)(HDPA)], (I) and (2), show that the high quenching effect on Tb3+ emission caused by Eu3+ ion indicates an efficient Tb3+-> Eu3+ energy transfer (ET). The k(ET) of Tb3+-> Eu3+ ET and rise rates (k(r)) of Eu3+ as a function of temperature for (1) are on the same order of magnitude, indicating that the sensitization of the Eu3+5D0 level is highly fed by ET from the D-5(4) level of Tb3+ ion. The eta(ET) and R-0 values vary in the 67-79% and 7.15 to 7.93 angstrom ranges. Hence, Tb3+ is enabled to transfer efficiently to Eu3+ that can occupy the possible sites at 6.32 and 6.75 angstrom. For (2), the ET processes occur on average with eta(ET) and R-0 of 97% and 31 angstrom, respectively. Consequently, Tb3+ ion is enabled to transfer energy to Eu3+ localized at different layers. The theoretical model developed by Malta was implemented aiming to insert more insights about the dominant mechanisms involved in the ET between lanthanides ions. Calculated single Tb3+-> Eu3+ ETs are three orders of magnitude inferior to those experimentally; however, it can be explained by the theoretical model that does not consider the role of phonon assistance in the Ln(3+)-> Ln(3+) ET processes. In addition, the Tb3+-> Eu3+ ET processes are predominantly governed by dipole-dipole (d-d) and dipole-quadrupole (d-q) mechanisms.

Model-based reuse for crosscutting frameworks: assessing reuse and maintenance effort

Abstract Background Over the last years, a number of researchers have investigated how to improve the reuse of crosscutting concerns. New possibilities have emerged with the advent of aspect-oriented programming, and many frameworks were designed considering the abstractions provided by this new paradigm. We call this type of framework Crosscutting Frameworks (CF), as it usually encapsulates a generic and abstract design of one crosscutting concern. However, most of the proposed CFs employ white-box strategies in their reuse process, requiring two mainly technical skills: (i) knowing syntax details of the programming language employed to build the framework and (ii) being aware of the architectural details of the CF and its internal nomenclature. Also, another problem is that the reuse process can only be initiated as soon as the development process reaches the implementation phase, preventing it from starting earlier. Method In order to solve these problems, we present in this paper a model-based approach for reusing CFs which shields application engineers from technical details, letting him/her concentrate on what the framework really needs from the application under development. To support our approach, two models are proposed: the Reuse Requirements Model (RRM) and the Reuse Model (RM). The former must be used to describe the framework structure and the later is in charge of supporting the reuse process. As soon as the application engineer has filled in the RM, the reuse code can be automatically generated. Results We also present here the result of two comparative experiments using two versions of a Persistence CF: the original one, whose reuse process is based on writing code, and the new one, which is model-based. The first experiment evaluated the productivity during the reuse process, and the second one evaluated the effort of maintaining applications developed with both CF versions. The results show the improvement of 97% in the productivity; however little difference was perceived regarding the effort for maintaining the required application. Conclusion By using the approach herein presented, it was possible to conclude the following: (i) it is possible to automate the instantiation of CFs, and (ii) the productivity of developers are improved as long as they use a model-based instantiation approach.

A practical comparison of agile web frameworks

[ES] Los web frameworks son herramientas para mejorar el desarrollo y mantenimiento de sitios web. Aprender a utilizar un framework requiere varios meses y existen más de 100 web frameworks. Por ello es interesante que haya estudios que muestren sus diferencias. En este proyecto se realizó una comparativa de web frameworks para valorar sus diferencias, debilidades y fortalezas. Para seleccionar los web frameworks se utilizaron variables como las estadísticas de uso, popularidad y resultados en otras omparativas. Además, se decidió que los web frameworks seleccionados estuviesen basados en distintos lenguajes de programación. En base a esto se seleccionaron los web frameworks : Rails, Grails, Django y Codelgniter. Para compararlos se implementó una aplicación muy sencilla, MyBlog, con cada uno de ellos, un sistema de usuarios con blogs, posts y comentarios. La preparación para esta implementación consistió en : leer documentación sobre el lenguaje de programación, realizar un conjunto de ejercicios muy sencillos y leer la documentación del web framework. Todas estas tareas, incluida la implementación de MyBlog se tuvieron que realizar en un tiempo límite asignado. En base a este desarrollo se concluyó que Rails, Grails y Django son frameworks que requieren mucho tiempo en su aprendizaje, mientras que Codelgniter es mucho más sencillo de aprender. Sin embargo, los primeros producen un código más conciso y menos repetitivo, mientras que el último resulta en un código repetitivo y extenso. Por otro lado, la documentación de Grails era de baja calidad e incrementaba la dificultad en su aprendizaje. Rails y Django presentan una buena documentación. Rails es el único framework con un gran soporte para migraciones y Javascript. Django es el único que soporta las class-based views. Grails es el único que soporta internacionalización desde la generación de código.

[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.

Using human rights for sexual and reproductive health: improving legal and regulatory frameworks

This paper describes the development of a tool that uses human rights concepts and methods to improve relevant laws, regulations and policies related to sexual and reproductive health. This tool aims to improve awareness and understanding of States' human rights obligations. It includes a method for systematically examining the status of vulnerable groups, involving non-health sectors, fostering a genuine process of civil society participation and developing recommendations to address regulatory and policy barriers to sexual and reproductive health with a clear assignment of responsibility. Strong leadership from the ministry of health, with support from the World Health Organization or other international partners, and the serious engagement of all involved in this process can strengthen the links between human rights and sexual and reproductive health, and contribute to national achievement of the highest attainable standard of health.

Discretionary medical reporting of potentially unfit drivers: a questionnaire-based survey in Southeast Switzerland

In Switzerland, every physician has the right to report a patient that is potentially unfit to drive to the licensing authority without violating medical confidentiality. Verified information regarding physicians' attitudes concerning this discretionary reporting and the frequency of such reports are not available. In order to answer these questions, 635 resident physicians were sent a questionnaire. The response rate was 52%. On average, the responding physicians--for all specialties--reported 0.31 patients (SD 0.64, 95% CI 0.24-0.38) in the year before the survey and 1.00 patient (SD 1.74, 95% CI 0.81-1.20) in the past 5 years. Seventy-nine percent of the responding physicians indicated knowing the current legal requirements for driving in Switzerland. In applied logistic regression analysis, only two factors correlate significantly with reporting: male sex (odds ratio 5.4) and the specialty "general medicine" (odds ratio 3.4). Ninety-seven percent of the physicians were against abolishing medical discretionary reporting and 29% were in favor of introducing mandatory reporting. The great majority of the questioned physicians supported the discretionary reporting of drivers that are potentially unfit to drive as currently practiced in Switzerland. The importance and the necessity of a regular traffic medicine-related continuing education for medical professionals are shown by the low number of reports per physician.

Critical incident monitoring in paediatric and adult critical care: from reporting to improved patient outcomes?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Critical incident reporting alone does not necessarily improve patient safety or even patient outcomes. Substantial improvement has been made by focusing on the further two steps of critical incident monitoring, that is, the analysis of critical incidents and implementation of system changes. The system approach to patient safety had an impact on the view about the patient's role in safety. This review aims to analyse recent advances in the technique of reporting, the analysis of reported incidents, and the implementation of actual system improvements. It also explores how families should be approached about safety issues. RECENT FINDINGS: It is essential to make as many critical incidents as possible known to the intensive care team. Several factors have been shown to increase the reporting rate: anonymity, regular feedback about the errors reported, and the existence of a safety climate. Risk scoring of critical incident reports and root cause analysis may help in the analysis of incidents. Research suggests that patients can be successfully involved in safety. SUMMARY: A persisting high number of reported incidents is anticipated and regarded as continuing good safety culture. However, only the implementation of system changes, based on incident reports, and also involving the expertise of patients and their families, has the potential to improve patient outcome. Hard outcome criteria, such as standardized mortality ratio, have not yet been shown to improve as a result of critical incident monitoring.

Reporting of research quality characteristics of studies published in 6 major clinical dental specialty journals

The objective of this article was to record reporting characteristics related to study quality of research published in major specialty dental journals with the highest impact factor (Journal of Endodontics, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics; Pediatric Dentistry, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, and International Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry). The included articles were classified into the following 3 broad subject categories: (1) cross-sectional (snap-shot), (2) observational, and (3) interventional. Multinomial logistic regression was conducted for effect estimation using the journal as the response and randomization, sample calculation, confounding discussed, multivariate analysis, effect measurement, and confidence intervals as the explanatory variables. The results showed that cross-sectional studies were the dominant design (55%), whereas observational investigations accounted for 13%, and interventions/clinical trials for 32%. Reporting on quality characteristics was low for all variables: random allocation (15%), sample size calculation (7%), confounding issues/possible confounders (38%), effect measurements (16%), and multivariate analysis (21%). Eighty-four percent of the published articles reported a statistically significant main finding and only 13% presented confidence intervals. The Journal of Clinical Periodontology showed the highest probability of including quality characteristics in reporting results among all dental journals.

Appropriateness of reporting statistical results in orthodontics: the dominance of P values over confidence intervals

The purpose of this study was to search the orthodontic literature and determine the frequency of reporting of confidence intervals (CIs) in orthodontic journals with an impact factor. The six latest issues of the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, the European Journal of Orthodontics, and the Angle Orthodontist were hand searched and the reporting of CIs, P values, and implementation of univariate or multivariate statistical analyses were recorded. Additionally, studies were classified according to the type/design as cross-sectional, case-control, cohort, and clinical trials, and according to the subject of the study as growth/genetics, behaviour/psychology, diagnosis/treatment, and biomaterials/biomechanics. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics followed by univariate examination of statistical associations, logistic regression, and multivariate modelling. CI reporting was very limited and was recorded in only 6 per cent of the included published studies. CI reporting was independent of journal, study area, and design. Studies that used multivariate statistical analyses had a higher probability of reporting CIs compared with those using univariate statistical analyses. Misunderstanding of the use of P values and CIs may have important implications in implementation of research findings in clinical practice.

Response to the Discussion of "The Effect on Financial Reporting Quality of an Exemption From the SEC Reporting Requirements for Foreign Private Issuers"

We appreciate the thorough discussion provided by Professor Yuan Ding. His comments raise legitimate issues. In this response, we offer clarifications and suggest avenues for future research. Our response follows the structure of the discussant’s paper and elaborates on each point separately.