Nantes Université
UniversityNantes, Pays de la Loire, France
Research output, citation impact, and the most-cited recent papers from Nantes Université (France). Aggregated across the NobleBlocks index of 300M+ scholarly works.
Top-cited papers from Nantes Université
The last decade has seen a sharp increase in the number of scientific publications describing physiological and pathological functions of extracellular vesicles (EVs), a collective term covering various subtypes of cell-released, membranous structures, called exosomes, microvesicles, microparticles, ectosomes, oncosomes, apoptotic bodies, and many other names. However, specific issues arise when working with these entities, whose size and amount often make them difficult to obtain as relatively pure preparations, and to characterize properly. The International Society for Extracellular Vesicles (ISEV) proposed Minimal Information for Studies of Extracellular Vesicles ("MISEV") guidelines for the field in 2014. We now update these "MISEV2014" guidelines based on evolution of the collective knowledge in the last four years. An important point to consider is that ascribing a specific function to EVs in general, or to subtypes of EVs, requires reporting of specific information beyond mere description of function in a crude, potentially contaminated, and heterogeneous preparation. For example, claims that exosomes are endowed with exquisite and specific activities remain difficult to support experimentally, given our still limited knowledge of their specific molecular machineries of biogenesis and release, as compared with other biophysically similar EVs. The MISEV2018 guidelines include tables and outlines of suggested protocols and steps to follow to document specific EV-associated functional activities. Finally, a checklist is provided with summaries of key points.
BACKGROUND: Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials of the BRAF kinase inhibitor vemurafenib (PLX4032) have shown response rates of more than 50% in patients with metastatic melanoma with the BRAF V600E mutation. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3 randomized clinical trial comparing vemurafenib with dacarbazine in 675 patients with previously untreated, metastatic melanoma with the BRAF V600E mutation. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either vemurafenib (960 mg orally twice daily) or dacarbazine (1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area intravenously every 3 weeks). Coprimary end points were rates of overall and progression-free survival. Secondary end points included the response rate, response duration, and safety. A final analysis was planned after 196 deaths and an interim analysis after 98 deaths. RESULTS: At 6 months, overall survival was 84% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78 to 89) in the vemurafenib group and 64% (95% CI, 56 to 73) in the dacarbazine group. In the interim analysis for overall survival and final analysis for progression-free survival, vemurafenib was associated with a relative reduction of 63% in the risk of death and of 74% in the risk of either death or disease progression, as compared with dacarbazine (P<0.001 for both comparisons). After review of the interim analysis by an independent data and safety monitoring board, crossover from dacarbazine to vemurafenib was recommended. Response rates were 48% for vemurafenib and 5% for dacarbazine. Common adverse events associated with vemurafenib were arthralgia, rash, fatigue, alopecia, keratoacanthoma or squamous-cell carcinoma, photosensitivity, nausea, and diarrhea; 38% of patients required dose modification because of toxic effects. CONCLUSIONS: Vemurafenib produced improved rates of overall and progression-free survival in patients with previously untreated melanoma with the BRAF V600E mutation. (Funded by Hoffmann-La Roche; BRIM-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01006980.).
AUTORES: Daniel J Klionsky1745,1749*, Kotb Abdelmohsen840, Akihisa Abe1237, Md Joynal Abedin1762, Hagai Abeliovich425, \nAbraham Acevedo Arozena789, Hiroaki Adachi1800, Christopher M Adams1669, Peter D Adams57, Khosrow Adeli1981, \nPeter J Adhihetty1625, Sharon G Adler700, Galila Agam67, Rajesh Agarwal1587, Manish K Aghi1537, Maria Agnello1826, \nPatrizia Agostinis664, Patricia V Aguilar1960, Julio Aguirre-Ghiso784,786, Edoardo M Airoldi89,422, Slimane Ait-Si-Ali1376, \nTakahiko Akematsu2010, Emmanuel T Akporiaye1097, Mohamed Al-Rubeai1394, Guillermo M Albaiceta1294, \nChris Albanese363, Diego Albani561, Matthew L Albert517, Jesus Aldudo128, Hana Alg€ul1164, Mehrdad Alirezaei1198, \nIraide Alloza642,888, Alexandru Almasan206, Maylin Almonte-Beceril524, Emad S Alnemri1212, Covadonga Alonso544, \nNihal Altan-Bonnet848, Dario C Altieri1205, Silvia Alvarez1497, Lydia Alvarez-Erviti1395, Sandro Alves107, \nGiuseppina Amadoro860, Atsuo Amano930, Consuelo Amantini1554, Santiago Ambrosio1458, Ivano Amelio756, \nAmal O Amer918, Mohamed Amessou2089, Angelika Amon726, Zhenyi An1538, Frank A Anania291, Stig U Andersen6, \nUsha P Andley2079, Catherine K Andreadi1690, Nathalie Andrieu-Abadie502, Alberto Anel2027, David K Ann58, \nShailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie388, Manuela Antonioli832,858, Hiroshi Aoki1791, Nadezda Apostolova2007, \nSaveria Aquila1500, Katia Aquilano1876, Koichi Araki292, Eli Arama2098, Agustin Aranda456, Jun Araya591, \nAlexandre Arcaro1472, Esperanza Arias26, Hirokazu Arimoto1225, Aileen R Ariosa1749, Jane L Armstrong1930, \nThierry Arnould1773, Ivica Arsov2120, Katsuhiko Asanuma675, Valerie Askanas1924, Eric Asselin1867, Ryuichiro Atarashi794, \nSally S Atherton369, Julie D Atkin713, Laura D Attardi1131, Patrick Auberger1787, Georg Auburger379, Laure Aurelian1727, \nRiccardo Autelli1992, Laura Avagliano1029,1755, Maria Laura Avantaggiati364, Limor Avrahami1166, Suresh Awale1986, \nNeelam Azad404, Tiziana Bachetti568, Jonathan M Backer28, Dong-Hun Bae1933, Jae-sung Bae677, Ok-Nam Bae409, \nSoo Han Bae2117, Eric H Baehrecke1729, Seung-Hoon Baek17, Stephen Baghdiguian1368, \nAgnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna2, Hua Bai90, Jie Bai667, Xue-Yuan Bai1133, Yannick Bailly884, \nKithiganahalli Narayanaswamy Balaji473, Walter Balduini2002, Andrea Ballabio316, Rena Balzan1711, Rajkumar Banerjee239, \nG abor B anhegyi1052, Haijun Bao2109, Benoit Barbeau1363, Maria D Barrachina2007, Esther Barreiro467, Bonnie Bartel997, \nAlberto Bartolom e222, Diane C Bassham550, Maria Teresa Bassi1046, Robert C Bast Jr1273, Alakananda Basu1798, \nMaria Teresa Batista1578, Henri Batoko1336, Maurizio Battino970, Kyle Bauckman2085, Bradley L Baumgarner1909, \nK Ulrich Bayer1594, Rupert Beale1553, Jean-Fran¸cois Beaulieu1360, George R. Beck Jr48,294, Christoph Becker336, \nJ David Beckham1595, Pierre-Andr e B edard749, Patrick J Bednarski301, Thomas J Begley1135, Christian Behl1419, \nChristian Behrends757, Georg MN Behrens406, Kevin E Behrns1627, Eloy Bejarano26, Amine Belaid490, \nFrancesca Belleudi1041, Giovanni B enard497, Guy Berchem706, Daniele Bergamaschi983, Matteo Bergami1401, \nBen Berkhout1441, Laura Berliocchi714, Am elie Bernard1749, Monique Bernard1354, Francesca Bernassola1880, \nAnne Bertolotti791, Amanda S Bess272, S ebastien Besteiro1351, Saverio Bettuzzi1828, Savita Bhalla913, \nShalmoli Bhattacharyya973, Sujit K Bhutia838, Caroline Biagosch1159, Michele Wolfe Bianchi520,1378,1381, \nMartine Biard-Piechaczyk210, Viktor Billes298, Claudia Bincoletto1314, Baris Bingol350, Sara W Bird1128, Marc Bitoun1112, \nIvana Bjedov1258, Craig Blackstone843, Lionel Blanc1183, Guillermo A Blanco1496, Heidi Kiil Blomhoff1812, \nEmilio Boada-Romero1297, Stefan B€ockler1464, Marianne Boes1423, Kathleen Boesze-Battaglia1835, Lawrence H Boise286,287, \nAlessandra Bolino2063, Andrea Boman693, Paolo Bonaldo1823, Matteo Bordi897, J€urgen Bosch608, Luis M Botana1308, \nJoelle Botti1375, German Bou1405, Marina Bouch e1038, Marion Bouchecareilh1331, Marie-Jos ee Boucher1901, \nMichael E Boulton481, Sebastien G Bouret1926, Patricia Boya133, Micha€el Boyer-Guittaut1345, Peter V Bozhkov1141, \nNathan Brady374, Vania MM Braga469, Claudio Brancolini1997, Gerhard H Braus353, Jos e M Bravo-San Pedro299,393,508,1374, \nLisa A Brennan322, Emery H Bresnick2022, Patrick Brest490, Dave Bridges1939, Marie-Agn es Bringer124, Marisa Brini1822, \nGlauber C Brito1311, Bertha Brodin631, Paul S Brookes1872, Eric J Brown352, Karen Brown1690, Hal E Broxmeyer480, \nAlain Bruhat486,1339, Patricia Chakur Brum1893, John H Brumell446, Nicola Brunetti-Pierri315,1171, \nRobert J Bryson-Richardson781, Shilpa Buch1777, Alastair M Buchan1819, Hikmet Budak1022, Dmitry V Bulavin118,505,1789, \nScott J Bultman1792, Geert Bultynck665, Vladimir Bumbasirevic1470, Yan Burelle1356, Robert E Burke216,217, \nMargit Burmeister1750, Peter B€utikofer1473, Laura Caberlotto1987, Ken Cadwell896, Monika Cahova112, Dongsheng Cai24, \nJingjing Cai2099, Qian Cai1018, Sara Calatayud2007, Nadine Camougrand1343, Michelangelo Campanella1700, \nGrant R Campbell1525, Matthew Campbell1249, Silvia Campello556,1876, Robin Candau1769, Isabella Caniggia1983, \nLavinia Cantoni560, Lizhi Cao116, Allan B Caplan1656, Michele Caraglia1051, Claudio Cardinali1043, Sandra Morais Cardoso1579, Jennifer S Carew208, Laura A Carleton874, Cathleen R Carlin101, Silvia Carloni2002, \nSven R Carlsson1267, Didac Carmona-Gutierrez1643, Leticia AM Carneiro312, Oliana Carnevali971, Serena Carra1318, \nAlice Carrier120, Bernadette Carroll900, Caty Casas1324, Josefina Casas1116, Giuliana Cassinelli324, Perrine Castets1462, \nSusana Castro-Obregon214, Gabriella Cavallini1841, Isabella Ceccherini568, Francesco Cecconi253,555,1884, \nArthur I Cederbaum459, Valent ın Ce~na199,1281, Simone Cenci1323,2064, Claudia Cerella444, Davide Cervia1996, \nSilvia Cetrullo1478, Hassan Chaachouay2028, Han-Jung Chae187, Andrei S Chagin634, Chee-Yin Chai626,628, \nGopal Chakrabarti1502, Georgios Chamilos1601, Edmond YW Chan1142, Matthew TV Chan181, Dhyan Chandra1003, \nPallavi Chandra548, Chih-Peng Chang818, Raymond Chuen-Chung Chang1653, Ta Yuan Chang345, John C Chatham1434, \nSaurabh Chatterjee1910, Santosh Chauhan527, Yongsheng Che62, Michael E Cheetham1263, Rajkumar Cheluvappa1783, \nChun-Jung Chen1153, Gang Chen598,1676, Guang-Chao Chen9, Guoqiang Chen1078, Hongzhuan Chen1077, Jeff W Chen1514, \nJian-Kang Chen370,371, Min Chen249, Mingzhou Chen2104, Peiwen Chen1823, Qi Chen1674, Quan Chen172, \nShang-Der Chen138, Si Chen325, Steve S-L Chen10, Wei Chen2125, Wei-Jung Chen829, Wen Qiang Chen979, Wenli Chen1113, \nXiangmei Chen1133, Yau-Hung Chen1157, Ye-Guang Chen1250, Yin Chen1447, Yingyu Chen953,955, Yongshun Chen2135, \nYu-Jen Chen712, Yue-Qin Chen1145, Yujie Chen1208, Zhen Chen339, Zhong Chen2123, Alan Cheng1702, \nChristopher HK Cheng184, Hua Cheng1728, Heesun Cheong814, Sara Cherry1836, Jason Chesney1703, \nChun Hei Antonio Cheung817, Eric Chevet1359, Hsiang Cheng Chi140, Sung-Gil Chi656, Fulvio Chiacchiera308, \nHui-Ling Chiang958, Roberto Chiarelli1826, Mario Chiariello235,567,577, Marcello Chieppa835, Lih-Shen Chin290, \nMario Chiong1285, Gigi NC Chiu878, Dong-Hyung Cho676, Ssang-Goo Cho650, William C Cho982, Yong-Yeon Cho105, \nYoung-Seok Cho1064, Augustine MK Choi2095, Eui-Ju Choi656, Eun-Kyoung Choi387,400,685, Jayoung Choi1563, \nMary E Choi2093, Seung-Il Choi2116, Tsui-Fen Chou412, Salem Chouaib395, Divaker Choubey1574, Vinay Choubey1936, \nKuan-Chih Chow822, Kamal Chowdhury730, Charleen T Chu1856, Tsung-Hsien Chuang827, Taehoon Chun657, \nHyewon Chung652, Taijoon Chung978, Yuen-Li Chung1194, Yong-Joon Chwae18, Valentina Cianfanelli254, \nRoberto Ciarcia1775, Iwona A Ciechomska886, Maria Rosa Ciriolo1876, Mara Cirone1042, Sofie Claerhout1694, \nMichael J Clague1698, Joan Cl aria1457, Peter GH Clarke1687, Robert Clarke361, Emilio Clementi1045,1398, C edric Cleyrat1781, \nMiriam Cnop1366, Eliana M Coccia574, Tiziana Cocco1459, Patrice Codogno1375, J€orn Coers271, Ezra EW Cohen1533, \nDavid Colecchia235,567,577, Luisa Coletto25, N uria S Coll123, Emma Colucci-Guyon516, Sergio Comincini1829, \nMaria Condello578, Katherine L Cook2073, Graham H Coombs1929, Cynthia D Cooper2076, J Mark Cooper1395, \nIsabelle Coppens601, Maria Tiziana Corasaniti1387, Marco Corazzari485,1884, Ramon Corbalan1566, \nElisabeth Corcelle-Termeau251, Mario D Cordero1899, Cristina Corral-Ramos1289, Olga Corti507,1109, Andrea Cossarizza1767, \nPaola Costelli1993, Safia Costes1518, Susan L Cotman721, Ana Coto-Montes946, Sandra Cottet566,1688, Eduardo Couve1301, \nLori R Covey1015, L Ashley Cowart762, Jeffery S Cox1536, Fraser P Coxon1427, Carolyn B Coyne1846, Mark S Cragg1919, \nRolf J Craven1679, Tiziana Crepaldi1995, Jose L Crespo1300, Alfredo Criollo1285, Valeria Crippa558, Maria Teresa Cruz1576, \nAna Maria Cuervo26, Jose M Cuezva1277, Taixing Cui1907, Pedro R Cutillas987, Mark J Czaja27, Maria F Czyzyk-Krzeska1572, \nRuben K Dagda2068, Uta Dahmen1404, Chunsun Dai800, Wenjie Dai1187, Yun Dai2059, Kevin N Dalby1940, \nLuisa Dalla Valle1822, Guillaume Dalmasso1340, Marcello D’Amelio557, Markus Damme188, Arlette Darfeuille-Michaud1340, \nCatherine Dargemont950, Victor M Darley-Usmar1433, Srinivasan Dasarathy205, Biplab Dasgupta202, Srikanta Dash1254, \nCrispin R Dass242, Hazel Marie Davey8, Lester M Davids1560, David D avila227, Roger J Davis1731, Ted M Dawson604, \nValina L Dawson606, Paula Daza1898, Jackie de Belleroche470, Paul de Figueiredo1180,1182, \nRegina Celia Bressan Queiroz de Figueiredo135, Jos e de la Fuente1023, Luisa De Martino1775, \nAntonella De Matteis1171, Guido RY De Meyer1443, Angelo De Milito631, Mauro De Santi2002,
The applications of copper (Cu) and Cu-based nanoparticles, which are based on the earth-abundant and inexpensive copper metal, have generated a great deal of interest in recent years, especially in the field of catalysis. The possible modification of the chemical and physical properties of these nanoparticles using different synthetic strategies and conditions and/or via postsynthetic chemical treatments has been largely responsible for the rapid growth of interest in these nanomaterials and their applications in catalysis. In addition, the design and development of novel support and/or multimetallic systems (e.g., alloys, etc.) has also made significant contributions to the field. In this comprehensive review, we report different synthetic approaches to Cu and Cu-based nanoparticles (metallic copper, copper oxides, and hybrid copper nanostructures) and copper nanoparticles immobilized into or supported on various support materials (SiO2, magnetic support materials, etc.), along with their applications in catalysis. The synthesis part discusses numerous preparative protocols for Cu and Cu-based nanoparticles, whereas the application sections describe their utility as catalysts, including electrocatalysis, photocatalysis, and gas-phase catalysis. We believe this critical appraisal will provide necessary background information to further advance the applications of Cu-based nanostructured materials in catalysis.
The charge storage mechanism in MnO2 electrode, used in aqueous electrolyte, was investigated by cyclic voltammetry and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. Thin MnO2 films deposited on a platinum substrate and thick MnO2 composite electrodes were used. First, the cyclic voltammetry data established that only a thin layer of MnO2 is involved in the redox process and electrochemically active. Second, the X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy data revealed that the manganese oxidation state was varying from III to IV for the reduced and oxidized forms of thin film electrodes, respectively, during the charge/discharge process. The X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy data also show that Na+ cations from the electrolyte were involved in the charge storage process of MnO2 thin film electrodes. However, the Na/Mn ratio for the reduced electrode was much lower than what was anticipated for charge compensation dominated by Na+, thus suggesting the involvement of protons in the pseudofaradaic mechanism. An important finding of this work is that, unlike thin film electrodes, no change of the manganese oxidation state was detected for a thicker composite electrode because only a very thin layer is involved in the charge storage process.
International audience
IMPORTANCE: The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019 (GBD 2019) provided systematic estimates of incidence, morbidity, and mortality to inform local and international efforts toward reducing cancer burden. OBJECTIVE: To estimate cancer burden and trends globally for 204 countries and territories and by Sociodemographic Index (SDI) quintiles from 2010 to 2019. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The GBD 2019 estimation methods were used to describe cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in 2019 and over the past decade. Estimates are also provided by quintiles of the SDI, a composite measure of educational attainment, income per capita, and total fertility rate for those younger than 25 years. Estimates include 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). FINDINGS: In 2019, there were an estimated 23.6 million (95% UI, 22.2-24.9 million) new cancer cases (17.2 million when excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and 10.0 million (95% UI, 9.36-10.6 million) cancer deaths globally, with an estimated 250 million (235-264 million) DALYs due to cancer. Since 2010, these represented a 26.3% (95% UI, 20.3%-32.3%) increase in new cases, a 20.9% (95% UI, 14.2%-27.6%) increase in deaths, and a 16.0% (95% UI, 9.3%-22.8%) increase in DALYs. Among 22 groups of diseases and injuries in the GBD 2019 study, cancer was second only to cardiovascular diseases for the number of deaths, years of life lost, and DALYs globally in 2019. Cancer burden differed across SDI quintiles. The proportion of years lived with disability that contributed to DALYs increased with SDI, ranging from 1.4% (1.1%-1.8%) in the low SDI quintile to 5.7% (4.2%-7.1%) in the high SDI quintile. While the high SDI quintile had the highest number of new cases in 2019, the middle SDI quintile had the highest number of cancer deaths and DALYs. From 2010 to 2019, the largest percentage increase in the numbers of cases and deaths occurred in the low and low-middle SDI quintiles. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results of this systematic analysis suggest that the global burden of cancer is substantial and growing, with burden differing by SDI. These results provide comprehensive and comparable estimates that can potentially inform efforts toward equitable cancer control around the world.
In this tutorial review, we show how Time-Dependent Density Functional Theory (TD-DFT) has become a popular tool for computing the signatures of electronically excited states, and more specifically, the properties directly related to the optical (absorption and emission) spectra of molecules. We discuss the properties that can be obtained with widely available programs as well as how to account for the environmental effects (solvent and surfaces) and present recent applications in these fields. We next expose the transformation of the TD-DFT results into chemically intuitive parameters (colours as well as charge-transfer distances). Eventually, the non-specialised reader will find a series of advices and warnings necessary to perform her/his first TD-DFT calculations.
We report on a search for weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) using 278.8 days of data collected with the XENON1T experiment at LNGS. XENON1T utilizes a liquid xenon time projection chamber with a fiducial mass of (1.30±0.01) ton, resulting in a 1.0 ton yr exposure. The energy region of interest, [1.4,10.6] keV_{ee} ([4.9,40.9] keV_{nr}), exhibits an ultralow electron recoil background rate of [82_{-3}^{+5}(syst)±3(stat)] events/(ton yr keV_{ee}). No significant excess over background is found, and a profile likelihood analysis parametrized in spatial and energy dimensions excludes new parameter space for the WIMP-nucleon spin-independent elastic scatter cross section for WIMP masses above 6 GeV/c^{2}, with a minimum of 4.1×10^{-47} cm^{2} at 30 GeV/c^{2} and a 90% confidence level.
An intertwined supply network (ISN) is an entirety of interconnected supply chains (SC) which, in their integrity secure the provision of society and markets with goods and services. The ISNs are open systems with structural dynamics since the firms may exhibit multiple behaviours by changing the buyer-supplier roles in interconnected or even competing SCs. From the positions of resilience, the ISNs as a whole provide services to society (e.g. food service, mobility service or communication service) which are required to ensure a long-term survival. The analysis of survivability at the level of ISN requires a consideration at a large scale as resilience of individual SCs. The recent example of coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak clearly shows the necessity of this new perspective. Our study introduces a new angle in SC resilience research when a resistance to extraordinary disruptions needs to be considered at the scale of viability. We elaborate on the integrity of the ISN and viability. The contribution of our position study lies in a conceptualisation of a novel decision-making environment of ISN viability. We illustrate the viability formation through a dynamic game-theoretic modelling of a biological system that resembles the ISN. We discuss some future research areas.
ALICE (A Large Ion Collider Experiment) is a general-purpose, heavy-ion detector at the CERN LHC which focuses on QCD, the strong-interaction sector of the Standard Model. It is designed to address the physics of strongly interacting matter and the quark-gluon plasma at extreme values of energy density and temperature in nucleus-nucleus collisions. Besides running with Pb ions, the physics programme includes collisions with lighter ions, lower energy running and dedicated proton-nucleus runs. ALICE will also take data with proton beams at the top LHC energy to collect reference data for the heavy-ion programme and to address several QCD topics for which ALICE is complementary to the other LHC detectors. The ALICE detector has been built by a collaboration including currently over 1000 physicists and engineers from 105 Institutes in 30 countries, Its overall dimensions are 16 x 16 x 26 m(3) with a total weight of approximately 10 000 t. The experiment consists of 18 different detector systems each with its own specific technology choice and design constraints, driven both by the physics requirements and the experimental conditions expected at LHC. The most stringent design constraint is to cope with the extreme particle multiplicity anticipated in central Pb-Pb collisions. The different subsystems were optimized to provide high-momentum resolution as well as excellent Particle Identification (PID) over a broad range in momentum, up to the highest multiplicities predicted for LHC. This will allow for comprehensive studies of hadrons, electrons, muons, and photons produced in the collision of heavy nuclei. Most detector systems are scheduled to be installed and ready for data taking by mid-2008 when the LHC is scheduled to start operation, with the exception of parts of the Photon Spectrometer (PHOS), Transition Radiation Detector (TRD) and Electro Magnetic Calorimeter (EMCal). These detectors will be completed for the high-luminosity ion run expected in 2010. This paper describes in detail the detector components as installed for the first data taking in the summer of 2008.
The 12th generation of the International Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF) was adopted in December 2014 by the Working Group V-MOD appointed by the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy (IAGA). It updates the previous IGRF generation with a definitive main field model for epoch 2010.0, a main field model for epoch 2015.0, and a linear annual predictive secular variation model for 2015.0-2020.0. Here, we present the equations defining the IGRF model, provide the spherical harmonic coefficients, and provide maps of the magnetic declination, inclination, and total intensity for epoch 2015.0 and their predicted rates of change for 2015.0-2020.0. We also update the magnetic pole positions and discuss briefly the latest changes and possible future trends of the Earth’s magnetic field.
International audience
BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular effects of ertugliflozin, an inhibitor of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2, have not been established. METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to receive 5 mg or 15 mg of ertugliflozin or placebo once daily. With the data from the two ertugliflozin dose groups pooled for analysis, the primary objective was to show the noninferiority of ertugliflozin to placebo with respect to the primary outcome, major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke). The noninferiority margin was 1.3 (upper boundary of a 95.6% confidence interval for the hazard ratio [ertugliflozin vs. placebo] for major adverse cardiovascular events). The first key secondary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS: A total of 8246 patients underwent randomization and were followed for a mean of 3.5 years. Among 8238 patients who received at least one dose of ertugliflozin or placebo, a major adverse cardiovascular event occurred in 653 of 5493 patients (11.9%) in the ertugliflozin group and in 327 of 2745 patients (11.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95.6% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.11; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 444 of 5499 patients (8.1%) in the ertugliflozin group and in 250 of 2747 patients (9.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95.8% CI, 0.75 to 1.03; P = 0.11 for superiority). The hazard ratio for death from cardiovascular causes was 0.92 (95.8% CI, 0.77 to 1.11), and the hazard ratio for death from renal causes, renal replacement therapy, or doubling of the serum creatinine level was 0.81 (95.8% CI, 0.63 to 1.04). Amputations were performed in 54 patients (2.0%) who received the 5-mg dose of ertugliflozin and in 57 patients (2.1%) who received the 15-mg dose, as compared with 45 patients (1.6%) who received placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, ertugliflozin was noninferior to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme and Pfizer; VERTIS CV ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01986881.).
We report on a search for particle dark matter with the XENON100 experiment, operated at the Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso for 13 months during 2011 and 2012. XENON100 features an ultralow electromagnetic background of $(5.3\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.6)\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}3}\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{events}/({\mathrm{keV}}_{\mathrm{ee}}\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}\mathrm{kg}\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}\mathrm{day})$ in the energy region of interest. A blind analysis of $224.6\text{ }\mathrm{\text{live days}}\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}34\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{kg}$ exposure has yielded no evidence for dark matter interactions. The two candidate events observed in the predefined nuclear recoil energy range of $6.6--30.5\text{ }\text{ }{\mathrm{keV}}_{\mathrm{nr}}$ are consistent with the background expectation of ($1.0\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.2$) events. A profile likelihood analysis using a $6.6--43.3\text{ }\text{ }{\mathrm{keV}}_{\mathrm{nr}}$ energy range sets the most stringent limit on the spin-independent elastic weakly interacting massive particle--nucleon scattering cross section for weakly interacting massive particle masses above $8\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{GeV}/{c}^{2}$, with a minimum of $2\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}45}\text{ }\text{ }{\mathrm{cm}}^{2}$ at $55\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{GeV}/{c}^{2}$ and 90% confidence level.
We undertook this study to develop uniformly accepted criteria for the definition of organ involvement and response for patients on treatment protocols for immunoglobulin light-chain amyloidosis (AL). A consensus panel was convened comprising 13 specialists actively involved in the treatment of patients with amyloidosis. Institutional criteria were submitted from each, and a consensus was developed defining each organ involved and the criteria for response. Specific criteria have been developed with agreed on definitions of organ and hematologic response as a result of discussions at the 10th International Symposium on Amyloid and Amyloidosis held in Tours, France, April 2004. These criteria now form the working definition of involvement and response for the purposes of future data collection and reporting. We report criteria that centers can now use to define organ involvement and uniform response criteria for reporting outcomes in patients with light-chain AL.
Electrochemical capacitors, so-called supercapacitors, play an important role in energy storage and conversion systems.
Time-Dependent Density Functional Theory (TD-DFT) has become the most widely-used theoretical approach to simulate the optical properties of both organic and inorganic molecules. In this contribution, we review TD-DFT benchmarks that have been performed during the last decade. The aim is often to pinpoint the most accurate or adequate exchangecorrelation functional(s). We present both the different strategies used to assess the functionals and the main results obtained in terms of accuracy. In particular, we discuss both vertical and adiabatic benchmarks and comparisons with both experimental and theoretical reference transition energies. More specific benchmarks (oscillator strengths, excited-state geometries, dipole moments, vibronic shapes, etc.) are summarized as well.
BACKGROUND: Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is a reference treatment for relapsed multiple myeloma. The combination of the proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone has shown efficacy in a phase 1 and 2 study in relapsed multiple myeloma. METHODS: We randomly assigned 792 patients with relapsed multiple myeloma to carfilzomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (carfilzomib group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: Progression-free survival was significantly improved with carfilzomib (median, 26.3 months, vs. 17.6 months in the control group; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 0.83; P=0.0001). The median overall survival was not reached in either group at the interim analysis. The Kaplan-Meier 24-month overall survival rates were 73.3% and 65.0% in the carfilzomib and control groups, respectively (hazard ratio for death, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99; P=0.04). The rates of overall response (partial response or better) were 87.1% and 66.7% in the carfilzomib and control groups, respectively (P<0.001; 31.8% and 9.3% of patients in the respective groups had a complete response or better; 14.1% and 4.3% had a stringent complete response). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported in 83.7% and 80.7% of patients in the carfilzomib and control groups, respectively; 15.3% and 17.7% of patients discontinued treatment owing to adverse events. Patients in the carfilzomib group reported superior health-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with relapsed multiple myeloma, the addition of carfilzomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone resulted in significantly improved progression-free survival at the interim analysis and had a favorable risk-benefit profile. (Funded by Onyx Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01080391.).
Importance: Remdesivir demonstrated clinical benefit in a placebo-controlled trial in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but its effect in patients with moderate disease is unknown. Objective: To determine the efficacy of 5 or 10 days of remdesivir treatment compared with standard care on clinical status on day 11 after initiation of treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, open-label trial of hospitalized patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and moderate COVID-19 pneumonia (pulmonary infiltrates and room-air oxygen saturation >94%) enrolled from March 15 through April 18, 2020, at 105 hospitals in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The date of final follow-up was May 20, 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive a 10-day course of remdesivir (n = 197), a 5-day course of remdesivir (n = 199), or standard care (n = 200). Remdesivir was dosed intravenously at 200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg/d. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was clinical status on day 11 on a 7-point ordinal scale ranging from death (category 1) to discharged (category 7). Differences between remdesivir treatment groups and standard care were calculated using proportional odds models and expressed as odds ratios. An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates difference in clinical status distribution toward category 7 for the remdesivir group vs the standard care group. Results: Among 596 patients who were randomized, 584 began the study and received remdesivir or continued standard care (median age, 57 [interquartile range, 46-66] years; 227 [39%] women; 56% had cardiovascular disease, 42% hypertension, and 40% diabetes), and 533 (91%) completed the trial. Median length of treatment was 5 days for patients in the 5-day remdesivir group and 6 days for patients in the 10-day remdesivir group. On day 11, patients in the 5-day remdesivir group had statistically significantly higher odds of a better clinical status distribution than those receiving standard care (odds ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.09-2.48; P = .02). The clinical status distribution on day 11 between the 10-day remdesivir and standard care groups was not significantly different (P = .18 by Wilcoxon rank sum test). By day 28, 9 patients had died: 2 (1%) in the 5-day remdesivir group, 3 (2%) in the 10-day remdesivir group, and 4 (2%) in the standard care group. Nausea (10% vs 3%), hypokalemia (6% vs 2%), and headache (5% vs 3%) were more frequent among remdesivir-treated patients compared with standard care. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with moderate COVID-19, those randomized to a 10-day course of remdesivir did not have a statistically significant difference in clinical status compared with standard care at 11 days after initiation of treatment. Patients randomized to a 5-day course of remdesivir had a statistically significant difference in clinical status compared with standard care, but the difference was of uncertain clinical importance. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04292730.