Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"For decades the European Union tried changing its institutions, but achieved only unsatisfying political compromises and modest, incremental treaty revisions. In late 2009, however, the EU was successfully reformed through the Treaty of Lisbon. Reforming the European Union examines how political leaders ratified this treaty against all odds and shows how this victory involved all stages of treaty reform negotiations--from the initial proposal to referendums in several European countries. The authors emphasize the strategic role of political leadership and domestic politics, and they use state-of-the-art methodology, applying a comprehensive data set for actors' reform preferences. They look at how political leaders reacted to apparent failures of the process by recreating or changing the rules of the game. While domestic actors played a significant role in the process, their influence over the outcome was limited as leaders ignored negative referendums and plowed ahead with intended reforms. The book's empirical analyses shed light on critical episodes: strategic agenda setting during the European Convention, the choice of ratification instrument, intergovernmental bargaining dynamics, and the reaction of the German Council presidency to the negative referendums in France, the Netherlands, and Ireland.\"-- Provided by publisher.

The FT headline today reveals the cold reality behind the spin. Whereas all that has been achieved, after 28 years, is a toothless statement of the obvious: that we need to transition away from fossil fuels. @GreenRupertRead | Rupert Read | 13.12.2023 Hyperproductive authors (who publish a paper every five days) are likely to be fraudulent authors, and clinical medicine has more of them than any other discipline. See PDF] @NiemanLab | Nieman Lab | 7.12.2023 Amazing to hear from @MichaelMarmot at #CreativeHealthReview launch, talking about the importance of providing opportunities for creativity, to build purpose, meaning and dignity.

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind The reviewers (at least two for each paper) received the manuscript with all the details of the authors and a form, prepared for the conference, with certain questions and a field for comments. The authors, at the next step, received anonymous reviews with the following possible recommendations: accept as is/minor revisions/major revisions/reject. The paper was revised by the authors accordingly and then final decision was taken by the editors. • Conference submission management system: The papers were submitted to an e-mail, handled by the editor. The handling editor managed the correspondence between reviewers and authors. • Number of submissions received: 39 •Number of submissions sent for review: 39 •Number of submissions accepted: 29 •Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 74.4% •Average number of reviews per paper: 2 •Total number of reviewers involved: 67 •Any additional info on review process (ie plagiarism check system): There was a pre-screening process of the abstracts by the editors, prior to the submission of the final papers. •Contact person for queries: imeti2019@imeti.org and imeti2019@gmail.com

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind The reviewers (at least two for each paper) received the manuscript with all the details of the authors and a form, prepared for the conference, with certain questions and a field for comments. The authors, at the next step, received anonymous reviews with the following possible recommendations: accept as is/minor revisions/major revisions/reject. The paper was revised by the authors accordingly and then it was forwarded to the same reviewers for final recommendation. Final Decision was taken by the editors. • Conference submission management system: The papers were submitted to an e-mail, handled by the editor. The handling editor managed the correspondence between reviewers and authors. • Number of submissions received: 76 • Number of submissions sent for review: 76 • Number of submissions accepted: 72 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 94,7% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 48 • Any additional info on review process: There was a pre-screening process of the abstracts by the editors, prior to the submission of the final papers. • Contact person for queries: Associate Professor Angelos P. Markopoulos, National Technical University of Athens, Greece, amark@mail.ntua.gr

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind • Describe criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers. Was there the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions? The paper is relevant to the topic of the conference and contains new research result(s), is clearly written and structured; figures and tables are informative and correctly organized; references are correct and contain new literature sources. After revision the papers were submitted to the editor; in some cases, two to three revisions were done. This provided the high rate of acceptance. • Conference submission management system: No special system was used. The papers were submitted to the conference secretariat and then distributed to reviewers by the editors. The reviewers sent their reviews to the editor who then finalised the editing process. • Number of submissions received: 74 • Number of submissions sent for review: 74 • Number of submissions accepted: 73 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 98.6% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 9 • Any additional info on review process (ie plagiarism check system): No • Contact person for queries: Ayrat A. Nazarov, aanazarov@imsp.ru

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. ● Type of peer review: Single-blind ● Conference submission management system: www.tiny.cc/oea2qz / E-mail submission (ertse2020@gmail.com) ● Number of submissions received: 35 ● Number of submissions sent for review: 35 ● Number of submissions accepted:32 ● Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 91.4 % ● Average number of reviews per paper: 3 ● Total number of reviewers involved: 6 ● Any additional info on review process: The reviewers reviewed the papers by considering the relevance to the conference themes, paper format requirements, plagiarism and language. The decisions made were (i) Recommended for publication, (ii) Recommended with revision, and (iii) Not recommended. The papers which required revision were sent back to the authors to incorporate the corrections and changes as suggested by the reviewers. The revised papers were again reviewed and recommended for publication. ● Contact person for queries: vasugi.v@vit.ac.in & helensanthi.m@vit.ac.in

Purpose Given the paucity of literature on the re-revision of ACL, the current study was undertaken. The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesise and qualitatively assess the currently available evidence in the literature regarding the re-revision of ACL reconstruction (rrACLR). Methods A systematic review was conducted based on the PRISMA guidelines. The following search terms were used in the title, abstract and keywords fields: “ACL” or “anterior cruciate ligament” AND “revision” or “multiple” or “repeat”. The outcome data extracted from the studies were the Lysholm score, Subjective IKDC, Marx Score, Tegner, Marx Score, KOOS score, radiological changes and the rate of return to sports. Complications, failures and/or revision surgery were also analysed. Results The cohort consisted of 295 patients [191 (64.7%) men and 104 (35.3%) women] with a mean age of 29.9 ± 2.8 years (range 14–58 years) from 10 studies. The mean postoperative follow-up (reported in all studies except one) was 66.9 ± 44.7 months (range 13–230.4 months). Associated injuries were 103 (34.9%) medial meniscus tears, 57 (19.3%) lateral meniscus tears, 14 (4.7%) combined medial plus lateral meniscus tears, 11 (3.7%) meniscal tears (not specified), 252 (85.4%) cartilage lesions, 6 (2.0%) medial collateral ligament injury and 2 (0.7%) lateral collateral ligament injuries. In 47 (15.9%) patients an extra-articular plasty was performed for the anterolateral ligament. In all studies that reported pre- and post-operative IKDC (subjective and objective) and Lysholm score, there was a significant improvement compared to the pre-operative value ( p  < 0.05). At the final follow-up, laxity measured with KT-1000 was found to be 2.2 ± 0.6 mm. 31 (10.5%) out of 295 patients returned to their pre-injury activity level. A total of 19 (6.4%) re-ruptures were found, while only 4 (1.4%) complications (all minors) were reported, out of which 2 (0.7%) were superficial infections, 1 (0.3%) cyclops lesion and 1 (0.3%) flexion loss. Conclusion Multiple revisions of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction allow acceptable clinical results and a good degree of knee stability with a low rate of subsequent new re-ruptures but the possibility of regaining pre-injury sports activity is poor; whenever possible, it is preferred to revise the ligament in one stage. This surgery remains a challenge for orthopaedic surgeons and many doubts persist regarding the ideal grafts, additional extra-articular procedures and techniques to use. Level of evidence IV. Study registration PROSPERO - CRD42022352164 ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ ).

Clinical coding is critical for hospital reimbursement, quality assessment, and health care planning. In Scandinavia, however, coding is often done by junior doctors or medical secretaries, leading to high rates of coding errors. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools, particularly semiautomatic computer-assisted coding tools, have the potential to reduce the excessive burden of administrative and clinical documentation. To date, much of what we know regarding these tools comes from lab-based evaluations, which often fail to account for real-world complexity and variability in clinical text. This study aims to investigate whether an AI tool developed by by Norwegian Centre for E-health Research at the University Hospital of North Norway, Easy-ICD (International Classification of Diseases), can enhance clinical coding practices by reducing coding time and improving data quality in a realistic setting. We specifically examined whether improvements differ between long and short clinical notes, defined by word count. An AI tool, Easy-ICD, was developed to assist clinical coders and was tested for improving both accuracy and time in a 1:1 crossover randomized controlled trial conducted in Sweden and Norway. Participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups (Sequence AB or BA), and crossed over between coding longer texts (Period 1; mean 307, SD 90; words) versus shorter texts (Period 2; mean 166, SD 55; words), while using our tool versus not using our tool. This was a purely web-based trial, where participants were recruited through email. Coding time and accuracy were logged and analyzed using Mann-Whitney U tests for each of the 2 periods independently, due to differing text lengths in each period. The trial had 17 participants enrolled, but only data from 15 participants (300 coded notes) were analyzed, excluding 2 incomplete records. Based on the Mann-Whitney U test, the median coding time difference for longer clinical text sequences was 123 seconds (P<.001, 95% CI 81-164), representing a 46% reduction in median coding time when our tool was used. For shorter clinical notes, the median time difference of 11 seconds was not significant (P=.25, 95% CI -34 to 8). Coding accuracy improved with Easy-ICD for both longer (62% vs 67%) and shorter clinical notes (60% vs 70%), but these differences were not statistically significant (P=.50and P=.17, respectively). User satisfaction ratings (submitted for 37% of cases) showed slightly higher approval for the tool's suggestions on longer clinical notes. This study demonstrates the potential of AI to transform common tasks in clinical workflows, with ostensible positive impacts on work efficiencies for clinical coding tasks with more demanding longer text sequences. Further studies within hospital workflows are required before these presumed impacts can be more clearly understood.

Purpose Preventing dislocation with large head (≥ 36 mm), dual mobility, or constrained acetabular liner is another option than a standard (≤ 32 mm). Many other dislocations risk factors than size of the femoral head exist after hip arthroplasty revision. Predicting dislocation with a calculator according to the implant, to the indication of revision, and to patient’s risks could allow a better surgery decision. Methods Our search method covers the period from 2000 to 2022. A total of 470 relevant citations on hip major revision (cup or stem or both revisions) were identified with artificial intelligence comprising 235 publications of 54,742 standard heads comprising 142 publications of 35,270 large heads, comprising 41 publications of 3945 constrained acetabular components, and 52 publications of 10,424 dual mobility implants. We considered four implant types (standard, large head, dual mobility, or constrained acetabular liner) as the entry layer of the artificial neural network (ANN). Indication for revision THA was the second hidden layer. Demographics, spine surgery, and neurologic disease were the third layer. Implant revision, reconstruction process as next input (hidden layer). Surgery-related factors, and so on. The output was a postoperative dislocation or not. Results Of the 104,381 hips that underwent a major revision, a second revision for dislocation was performed for 9234 hips. In each implant group, dislocation remained the first cause of revision. The rate of second revision for dislocation as a percentage of first revision procedures was significantly higher in the standard head group (11.8%) than in the constrained acetabular liner group (4.5%), the dual mobility group (4.1%), and the large head group (6.1%). Instability of a previous THA, infection, or periprosthetic fracture as the indication for revision was increased risk factors as compared with aseptic loosening. One hundred variables were used to create the calculator with the best parameter combination of data and ranking the different factors, according to the four implant types (standard, large head, dual mobility, or constrained acetabular liner). Conclusion The calculator can be used as a tool to identify patients at risk for dislocation after hip arthroplasty revision and individualize recommendations to select another option than a standard head size.