Magnetic actuators for nanosatellite attitude control

The research and the activities presented in the following thesis report have been led at the California Polytechnic State University (US) under the supervision of Prof. Jordi Puig Suari. The objective of the research has been the study of magnetic actuators for nanosatellite attitude control, called magnetorquer. Theese actuators are generally divided in three different kinds: air core torquer, embedded coil and torquerod. In a first phase of the activity, each technology has been analyzed, defining advantages and disadvantages, determining manufacturing procedures and creating mathematical model and designing equation. Dimensioning tools have been then implemented in numerical software to create an instrument that permits to determine the optimal configuration for defined requirements and constraints. In a second phase of the activities the models created have been validated exploiting prototypes and proper instruments for measurements. The instruments and the material exploited for experiments and prototyping have been provided by the PolySat and CubeSat laboratories. The results obtained led to the definition of a complete designing tool and procedure for nanosatellite magnetic actuators, introducing a cost analysis for each kind of solution. The models and the tools have been maintained fully parametric in order to offer a universal re-scalable instrument for satellite of different dimension class.

Das Biobankgeheimnis : Schutz der Persönlichkeitsrechte in der biomedizinischen Forschung

Biobanken sind Sammlungen von Körpersubstanzen, die mit umfangreichen gesundheits- und lebensstilbezogenen sowie geneologischen Daten ihrer Spender verknüpft sind. Sie dienen der Erforschung weit verbreiteter Krankheiten. Diese sog. Volkskrankheiten sind multifaktoriell bedingte Krankheiten. Dies bedeutet, dass diese Krankheiten das Ergebnis eines komplizierten Zusammenspiels von umwelt- und verhaltensrelevanten Faktoren mit individuellen genetischen Prädispositionen sind. Forschungen im Bereich von Pharmakogenomik und Pharmakogenetik untersuchen den Einfluss von Genen und Genexpressionen auf die individuelle Wirksamkeit von Medikamenten sowie auf die Entstehung ungewollter Nebenwirkungen und könnten so den Weg zu einer individualisierten Medizin ebnen. Menschliches Material ist ein wichtiger Bestandteil dieser Forschungen und die Nachfrage nach Sammlungen, die Proben mit Daten verknüpfen, steigt. Einerseits sehen Mediziner in Biobanken eine Chance für die Weiterentwicklung der medizinischen Forschung und des Gesundheitswesens. Andererseits lösen Biobanken auch Ängste und Misstrauen aus. Insbesondere wird befürchtet, dass Proben und Daten unkontrolliert verwendet werden und sensible Bereiche des Persönlichkeitsrechts und der persönlichen Identität betroffen sind. Diese Gefahren und Befürchtungen sind nicht neu, sondern bestanden schon in der Vergangenheit bei jeglicher Form der Spende von Körpersubstanzen. Neu ist aber der Umfang an Informationen, der durch die Genanalyse entsteht und den Spender in ganz besonderer Weise betreffen kann. Bei der Speicherung und Nutzung der medizinischen und genetischen Daten ergibt sich somit ein Spannungsfeld insbesondere zwischen dem Recht der betroffenen Datenspender auf informationelle Selbstbestimmung und den Forschungsinteressen der Datennutzer. Im Kern dreht sich die ethisch-rechtliche Bewertung der Biobanken um die Frage, ob diese Forschung zusätzliche Regeln braucht, und falls ja, wie umfassend diese sein müssten. Im Zentrum dieser Diskussion stehen dabei v.a. ethische Fragen im Zusammenhang mit der informierten Einwilligung, dem Datenschutz, der Wiederverwendung von Proben und Daten, der Information der Spender über Forschungsergebnisse und der Nutzungsrechte an den Daten. Ziel dieser Arbeit ist es, vor dem Hintergrund des Verfassungsrechts, insbesondere dem Recht auf informationelle Selbstbestimmung, das Datenschutzrecht im Hinblick auf die Risiken zu untersuchen, die sich aus der Speicherung, Verarbeitung und Kommunikation von persönlichen genetischen Informationen beim Aufbau von Biobanken ergeben. Daraus ergibt sich die weitere Untersuchung, ob und unter welchen Voraussetzungen die sich entgegenstehenden Interessen und Rechte aus verfassungsrechtlichem Blickwinkel in Einklang zu bringen sind. Eine wesentliche Frage lautet, ob die bisherigen rechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen ausreichen, um den Schutz der gespeicherten höchstpersönlichen Daten und zugleich ihre angemessene Nutzung zu gewährleisten. Das Thema ist interdisziplinär im Schnittfeld von Datenschutz, Verfassungsrecht sowie Rechts- und Medizinethik angelegt. Aus dem Inhalt: Naturwissenschaftliche und empirische Grundlagen von Biobanken – Überblick über Biobankprojekte in Europa und im außereuropäischen Ausland – Rechtsgrundlagen für Biobanken - Recht auf informationelle Selbstbestimmung - Recht auf Nichtwissen - Forschungsfreiheit - Qualitätssicherung und Verfahren – informierte Einwilligung – globale Einwilligung - Datenschutzkonzepte - Forschungsgeheimnis –– Biobankgeheimnis - Biobankgesetz

Plant immunostimulants-Scientific paradigm or myth?

In traditional medicine, numerous plant preparations are used to treat inflammation both topically and systemically. Several anti-inflammatory plant extracts and a few natural product-based monosubstances have even found their way into the clinic. Unfortunately, a number of plant secondary metabolites have been shown to trigger detrimental pro-allergic immune reactions and are therefore considered to be toxic. In the phytotherapy research literature, numerous plants are also claimed to exert immunostimulatory effects. However, while the concepts of plant-derived anti-inflammatory agents and allergens are well established, the widespread notion of immunostimulatory plant natural products and their potential therapeutic use is rather obscure, often with the idea that the product is some sort of "tonic" for the immune system without actually specifying the mechanisms. In this commentary it is argued that the paradigm of oral plant immunostimulants lacks clinical evidence and may therefore be a myth, which has originated primarily from in vitro studies with plant extracts. The fact that no conclusive data on orally administered immunostimulants can be found in the scientific literature inevitably prompts us to challenge this paradigm.

Justified Belief Change

Justification Logic is a framework for reasoning about evidence and justification. Public Announcement Logic is a framework for reasoning about belief changes caused by public announcements. This paper develops JPAL, a dynamic justification logic of public announcements that corresponds to the modal theory of public announcements due to Gerbrandy and Groeneveld. JPAL allows us to reason about evidence brought about by and changed by Gerbrandy--Groeneveld-style public announcements.

Chapter VI: Follow-up after revascularisation

Structured follow-up after revascularisation for chronic critical limb ischaemia (CLI) aims at sustained treatment success and continued best patient care. Thereby, efforts need to address three fundamental domains: (A) best medical therapy, both to protect the arterial reconstruction locally and to reduce atherosclerotic burden systemically; (B) surveillance of the arterial reconstruction; and (C) timely initiation of repeat interventions. As most CLI patients are elderly and frail, sustained resolution of CLI and preserved ambulatory capacity may decide over independent living and overall prognosis. Despite this importance, previous guidelines have largely ignored follow-up after CLI; arguably because of a striking lack of evidence and because of a widespread assumption that, in the context of CLI, efficacy of initial revascularisation will determine prognosis during the short remaining life expectancy. This chapter of the current CLI guidelines aims to challenge this disposition and to recommend evidentially best clinical practice by critically appraising available evidence in all of the above domains, including antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapy, clinical surveillance, use of duplex ultrasound, and indications for and preferred type of repeat interventions for failing and failed reconstructions. However, as corresponding studies are rarely performed among CLI patients specifically, evidence has to be consulted that derives from expanded patient populations. Therefore, most recommendations are based on extrapolations or subgroup analyses, which leads to an almost systematic degradation of their strength. Endovascular reconstruction and surgical bypass are considered separately, as are specific contexts such as diabetes or renal failure; and critical issues are highlighted throughout to inform future studies.

Critical review of the use of erythropoietin in the treatment of anaemia during therapy for chronic hepatitis C

Combined pegylated interferon (PegIFN) and ribavirin represents the standard therapy for patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC), which allows for sustained viral response (SVR) in up to 90% of patients depending on certain viral and host factors. Clinical studies have demonstrated the importance of adherence to therapy, that is, the ability of patients to tolerate and sustain a fully dosed therapy regimen. Adherence is markedly impaired by treatment-related adverse effects. In particular, haemolytic anaemia often requires dose reduction or termination of ribavirin treatment, which compromises treatment efficacy. Recent evidence points to a beneficial role of recombinant erythropoietin (EPO) in alleviating ribavirin-induced anaemia thereby improving quality of life, enabling higher ribavirin dosage and consequently improving SVR. However, no general consensus exists regarding the use of EPO for specific indications: its optimal dosing, treatment benefits and potential risks or cost efficiency. The Swiss Association for the Study of the Liver (SASL) has therefore organized an expert meeting to critically review and discuss the current evidence and to phrase recommendations for clinical practice. A consensus was reached recommending the use of EPO for patients infected with viral genotype 1 developing significant anaemia below 100 g/L haemoglobin and a haematocrit of <30% during standard therapy to improve quality of life and sustain optimal ribavirin dose. However, the evidence supporting its use in patients with pre-existing anaemia, non-1 viral genotypes, a former relapse or nonresponse, liver transplant recipients and cardiovascular or pulmonary disease is considered insufficient.

[Interdisciplinary AWMF guideline for the treatment of primary antibody deficiencies]

Currently, management of antibody deficient patients differs significantly among caregivers. Evidence and consensus based (S3) guidelines for the treatment of primary antibody deficiencies were developed to improve the management of these patients.

EAU guidelines on surgical treatment of urinary incontinence

The European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on urinary incontinence published in March 2012 have been rewritten based on an independent systematic review carried out by the EAU guidelines panel using a sustainable methodology. OBJECTIVE: We present a short version here of the full guidelines on the surgical treatment of patients with urinary incontinence, with the aim of dissemination to a wider audience. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Evidence appraisal included a pragmatic review of existing systematic reviews and independent new literature searches based on Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) questions. The appraisal of papers was carried out by an international panel of experts, who also collaborated in a series of consensus discussions, to develop concise structured evidence summaries and action-based recommendations using a modified Oxford system. EVIDENCE SUMMARY: The full version of the guidance is available online (www.uroweb.org/guidelines/online-guidelines/). The guidance includes algorithms that refer the reader back to the supporting evidence and have greater accessibility in daily clinical practice. Two original meta-analyses were carried out specifically for these guidelines and are included in this report. CONCLUSIONS: These new guidelines present an up-to-date summary of the available evidence, together with clear clinical algorithms and action-based recommendations based on the best available evidence. Where high-level evidence is lacking, they present a consensus of expert panel opinion.

Guidance for the preparation of neurological management guidelines by EFNS scientific task forces - revised recommendations 2012

This paper is meant to provide guidance to anyone wishing to write a neurological guideline for diagnosis or treatment, and is directed at the Scientist Panels and task forces of the European Federation of Neurological Societies (EFNS). It substitutes the previous guidance paper from 2004. It contains several new aspects: the guidance is now based on a change of the grading system for evidence and for the resulting recommendations, and has adopted The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system (GRADE). The process of grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations can now be improved and made more transparent. The task forces embarking on the development of a guideline must now make clearer and more transparent choices about outcomes considered most relevant when searching the literature and evaluating their findings. Thus, the outcomes chosen will be more critical, more patient-oriented and easier to translate into simple recommendations. This paper also provides updated practical recommendations for planning a guideline task force within the framework of the EFNS. Finally, this paper hopes to find the approval also by the relevant bodies of our future organization, the European Academy of Neurology.

ASSESSING THE UNRELIABILITY OF THE MEDICAL LITERATURE: A RESPONSE TO "WHY MOST PUBLISHED RESEARCH FINDINGS ARE FALSE"

A recent article in this journal (Ioannidis JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2: e124) argued that more than half of published research findings in the medical literature are false. In this commentary, we examine the structure of that argument, and show that it has three basic components: 1)An assumption that the prior probability of most hypotheses explored in medical research is below 50%. 2)Dichotomization of P-values at the 0.05 level and introduction of a “bias” factor (produced by significance-seeking), the combination of which severely weakens the evidence provided by every design. 3)Use of Bayes theorem to show that, in the face of weak evidence, hypotheses with low prior probabilities cannot have posterior probabilities over 50%. Thus, the claim is based on a priori assumptions that most tested hypotheses are likely to be false, and then the inferential model used makes it impossible for evidence from any study to overcome this handicap. We focus largely on step (2), explaining how the combination of dichotomization and “bias” dilutes experimental evidence, and showing how this dilution leads inevitably to the stated conclusion. We also demonstrate a fallacy in another important component of the argument –that papers in “hot” fields are more likely to produce false findings. We agree with the paper’s conclusions and recommendations that many medical research findings are less definitive than readers suspect, that P-values are widely misinterpreted, that bias of various forms is widespread, that multiple approaches are needed to prevent the literature from being systematically biased and the need for more data on the prevalence of false claims. But calculating the unreliability of the medical research literature, in whole or in part, requires more empirical evidence and different inferential models than were used. The claim that “most research findings are false for most research designs and for most fields” must be considered as yet unproven.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September, 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles.18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies.A detailed explanation and elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed "Explanation and Elaboration" document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies. We convened a two-day workshop, in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.