Inconel 625 lattice structures manufactured by selective laser melting (SLM): Mechanical properties, deformation and failure modes
In: Materials and design, Band 157, S. 179-199
ISSN: 1873-4197
120 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Materials and design, Band 157, S. 179-199
ISSN: 1873-4197
In: Air quality, atmosphere and health: an international journal, Band 7, Heft 4, S. 467-480
ISSN: 1873-9326
This review article provides a critical review of studies assessing the effects of the health of infants, children abused. During the last decades, a large amount of studies and literature reviews on the consequences of child sexual abuse has been appeared. Child abuse and neglect, is the extent to which society is not well known, most of the times that are hidden, many more victims does not mention in a public health problem. World Health Organization, children's health, adversely affects the physical or psychosocial development, an adult, knowingly or unknowingly, in the community or by the government accepts all the same behavior as child abuse. Abused and neglected child reaches very few therapeutic institutions. Generally, the cases remain hidden in the family. If the situation was brought in the emergency department is often heavy, life-threatening complications. Key Words: Sexual abuse, child abuse, prevention, depression, sexualized behavior.
BASE
Jaber S Alqahtani,1,2 Renata G Mendes,3 Abdulelah Aldhahir,1,4 Daniel Rowley,5 Mohammed D AlAhmari,2,6 George Ntoumenopoulos,7 Saeed M Alghamdi,8,9 Jithin K Sreedharan,2 Yousef S Aldabayan,10 Tope Oyelade,11 Ahmed Alrajeh,10 Carlo Olivieri,12 Maher AlQuaimi,13 Jerome Sullivan,14 Mohammed A Almeshari,15 Antonio Esquinas16 1UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK; 2Department of Respiratory Care, Prince Sultan Military College of Health Sciences, Dammam, Saudi Arabia; 3Department of Physical Therapy, Cardiopulmonary Physiotherapy Laboratory, Federal University of São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil; 4Respiratory Care Department, Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia; 5Pulmonary Diagnostics & Respiratory Therapy Services, University of Virginia Medical Center, Charlottesville, VA, USA; 6Dammam Health Network, Dammam, Saudi Arabia; 7Consultant Physiotherapist, Physiotherapy Department St Vincent's Hospital Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 8National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK; 9Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia; 10Respiratory Care, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia; 11UCL Institute for Liver and Digestive Health, London, UK; 12Emergency Department, Ospedale Sant'Andrea, Vercelli 13100, Italy; 13Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia; 14President, International Council for Respiratory Care, Professor Emeritus & Respiratory Care Program Director, The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA; 15Rehabilitation Health Sciences Department, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 16Director International NIV School, Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Morales Meseguer, Murcia, SpainCorrespondence: Jaber S AlqahtaniUCL Respiratory, University College London, Rowland Hill Street, London NW3 2PF, UKEmail Alqahtani-Jaber@hotmail.comBackground: As the global outbreak of COVID-19 continues to ravage the world, it is important to understand how frontline clinicians manage ventilatory support and the various limiting factors.Methods: An online survey composed of 32 questions was developed and validated by an international expert panel.Results: Overall, 502 respondents from 40 countries across six continents completed the survey. The mean number (±SD) of ICU beds was 64 ± 84. The most popular initial diagnostic tools used for treatment initiation were arterial blood gas (48%) and clinical presentation (37.5%), while the national COVID-19 guidelines were the most used (61.2%). High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) (53.8%), non-invasive ventilation (NIV) (47%), and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (92%) were mostly used for mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19 cases, respectively. However, only 38.8%, 56.6% and 82.9% of the respondents had standard protocols for HFNC, NIV, and IMV, respectively. The most frequently used modes of IMV and NIV were volume control (VC) (36.1%) and continuous positive airway pressure/pressure support (CPAP/PS) (40.6%). About 54% of the respondents did not adhere to the recommended, regular ventilator check interval. The majority of the respondents (85.7%) used proning with IMV, with 48.4% using it for 12– 16 hours, and 46.2% had tried awake proning in combination with HFNC or NIV. Increased staff workload (45.02%), lack of trained staff (44.22%) and shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) (42.63%) were the main barriers to COVID-19 management.Conclusion: Our results show that general clinical practices involving ventilatory support were highly heterogeneous, with limited use of standard protocols and most frontline clinicians depending on isolated and varied management guidelines. We found increased staff workload, lack of trained staff and shortage of PPE to be the main limiting factors affecting global COVID-19 ventilatory support management.Keywords: COVID-19, ventilation, respiratory, clinical management, proning, mechanical ventilation, NIV, HFNC
BASE
In: Environmental science and pollution research: ESPR, Band 26, Heft 15, S. 15248-15254
ISSN: 1614-7499
Background: Objectives: this study was conducted to determine the impact of family presence during resuscitation and to determine attitude of health care practitioner toward family presence during resuscitation. Methods: This study conducted at Prince Sultan military medical city, King Khalid university hospital and King Saud medical city in Riyadh Saudi Arabia. A cross sectional descriptive study to find out effect of presence of relatives during CPR on health care providers and family members in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.All health providers attending during adult CPR were included in the study. 360 HCP were interviewed using a questionnaire. (semi-structured interview). data analysis done by the use of SPSS program
BASE
In: Environmental science and pollution research: ESPR, Band 28, Heft 30, S. 40311-40321
ISSN: 1614-7499
In: HELIYON-D-23-13693
SSRN
In: Environmental science and pollution research: ESPR, Band 30, Heft 3, S. 7987-8001
ISSN: 1614-7499
Following the success of our first therapeutic discovery conference in 2017 and the selection of King Abdullah International Medical Research Centre (KAIMRC) as the first Phase 1 clinical site in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, we organized our second conference in partnership with leading institutions in academic drug discovery, which included the Structural Genomic Constorium (Oxford, UK), Fraunhofer (Germany) and Institute Material Medica (China) ; the participation of members of the American Drug Discovery Consterium ; European Biotech companies ; and local pharma companies, SIPMACO and SudairPharma. In addition, we had European and Northern American venture capital experts attending and presenting at the conference. The purpose of the conference was to bridge the gap between biotech, pharma and academia regarding drug discovery and development. Its aim primarily was to: (a) bring together world experts on academic drug discovery to discuss and propose new approaches to discover and develop new therapies ; (b) establish a permanent platform for scientific exchange between academia and the biotech and pharmaceutical industries ; (c) entice national and international investors to consider funding drugs discovered in academia ; (d) educate the population about the causes of diseases, approaches to prevent them from happening and their cure ; (e) attract talent to consider the drug discovery track for their studies and career. During the conference, we discussed the unique academic drug discovery disrupting business models, which can make their discoveries easily accessible in an open source mode. This unique model accelerates the dissemination of knowledge to all world scientists to guide them in their research. This model is aimed at bringing effective and affordable medicine to all mankind in a very short time. Moreover, the program discussed rare disease targets, orphan drug discovery, immunotherapy discovery and process, the role of bioinformatics in drug discovery, anti-infective drug discovery in the era of bad bugs, natural products as a source of novel drugs and innovative drug formulation and delivery. Additionally, as the conference was organized during the surge of the epidemic, we dedicated the first day (25 February) to coronavirus science, detection and therapy. The day was co-organized with the King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia(KSA) Ministry of Education to announce the grant winner for infectious diseases. Simultaneously, intensive courses were delivered to junior scientists on the principle of drug discovery, immunology and clinical trials, as well as rare diseases. The second therapeutics discovery forum provided a platform for interactive knowledge sharing and the convergence of researchers, governments, pharmaceuticals, biopharmaceuticals, hospitals and non-profit organizations on the topic of academic drug discovery. The event presented showcases on global drug discovery initiatives and demonstrated how collaborations are leading to successful new therapies. In line with the KSA 2030 vision on becoming world leaders with an innovative economy and healthy population, therapeutic discovery is becoming an area of interest to science leaders in the kingdom, and our conference gave us the opportunity to identity key areas of interest as well as potential future collaborations.
BASE
Following the success of our first therapeutic discovery conference in 2017 and the selection of King Abdullah International Medical Research Centre (KAIMRC) as the first Phase 1 clinical site in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, we organized our second conference in partnership with leading institutions in academic drug discovery, which included the Structural Genomic Constorium (Oxford, UK), Fraunhofer (Germany) and Institute Material Medica (China); the participation of members of the American Drug Discovery Consterium; European Biotech companies; and local pharma companies, SIPMACO and SudairPharma. In addition, we had European and Northern American venture capital experts attending and presenting at the conference. The purpose of the conference was to bridge the gap between biotech, pharma and academia regarding drug discovery and development. Its aim primarily was to: (a) bring together world experts on academic drug discovery to discuss and propose new approaches to discover and develop new therapies; (b) establish a permanent platform for scientific exchange between academia and the biotech and pharmaceutical industries; (c) entice national and international investors to consider funding drugs discovered in academia; (d) educate the population about the causes of diseases, approaches to prevent them from happening and their cure; (e) attract talent to consider the drug discovery track for their studies and career. During the conference, we discussed the unique academic drug discovery disrupting business models, which can make their discoveries easily accessible in an open source mode. This unique model accelerates the dissemination of knowledge to all world scientists to guide them in their research. This model is aimed at bringing effective and affordable medicine to all mankind in a very short time. Moreover, the program discussed rare disease targets, orphan drug discovery, immunotherapy discovery and process, the role of bioinformatics in drug discovery, anti-infective drug discovery in the era of bad bugs, natural products as a source of novel drugs and innovative drug formulation and delivery. Additionally, as the conference was organized during the surge of the epidemic, we dedicated the first day (25 February) to coronavirus science, detection and therapy. The day was co-organized with the King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia(KSA) Ministry of Education to announce the grant winner for infectious diseases. Simultaneously, intensive courses were delivered to junior scientists on the principle of drug discovery, immunology and clinical trials, as well as rare diseases. The second therapeutics discovery forum provided a platform for interactive knowledge sharing and the convergence of researchers, governments, pharmaceuticals, biopharmaceuticals, hospitals and non-profit organizations on the topic of academic drug discovery. The event presented showcases on global drug discovery initiatives and demonstrated how collaborations are leading to successful new therapies. In line with the KSA 2030 vision on becoming world leaders with an innovative economy and healthy population, therapeutic discovery is becoming an area of interest to science leaders in the kingdom, and our conference gave us the opportunity to identity key areas of interest as well as potential future collaborations. ; This research was funded by the King Abdullah International Medical Research Centre (KAIMRC), grant number RC15/163.
BASE
In: https://publikationen.bibliothek.kit.edu/1000134469
One of the grand challenges discussed during the Dagstuhl Seminar "Knowledge Graphs: New Directions for Knowledge Representation on the Semantic Web" and described in its report is that of a: "Public FAIR Knowledge Graph of Everything: We increasingly see the creation of knowledge graphs that capture information about the entirety of a class of entities. [.] This grand challenge extends this further by asking if we can create a knowledge graph of "everything" ranging from common sense concepts to location based entities. This knowledge graph should be "open to the public" in a FAIR manner democratizing this mass amount of knowledge." Although linked open data (LOD) is one knowledge graph, it is the closest realisation (and probably the only one) to a public FAIR Knowledge Graph (KG) of everything. Surely, LOD provides a unique testbed for experimenting and evaluating research hypotheses on open and FAIR KG. One of the most neglected FAIR issues about KGs is their ongoing evolution and long term preservation. We want to investigate this problem, that is to understand what preserving and supporting the evolution of KGs means and how these problems can be addressed. Clearly, the problem can be approached from different perspectives and may require the development of different approaches, including new theories, ontologies, metrics, strategies, procedures, etc. This document reports a collaborative effort performed by 9 teams of students, each guided by a senior researcher as their mentor, attending the International Semantic Web Research School (ISWS 2019). Each team provides a different perspective to the problem of knowledge graph evolution substantiated by a set of research questions as the main subject of their investigation. In addition, they provide their working definition for KG preservation and ...
BASE
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
BASE
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long- term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
BASE
Background: Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods: This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings: Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16-30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77-0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50-0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80-0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54-0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation: Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services.
BASE