79 research outputs found

    D. Raev and A. Staneva. Hypertension and carotid intima-media thickness. Part I. Methodology

    No full text
    Адрес за кореспонденция: Доц. д-р Димитър Раев, Медицински институт – МВР; бул. „Скобелев” № 79; 1606 София; email: [email protected] ***** Address for correspondence: Assoc. Prof. Dimitar Raev, MD; Medical Institute – Ministry of Interior; 79, Skobelev Bul.; 1606 Sofia; email: [email protected]Резюме. Първите морфологични промени в артериалната стена могат да бъдат визуализирани чрез B-mode ултрасонография. Каротидната ехография е използвана в многобройни клинични изследвания за мониториране на дебелината на каротидната интима-медия (ДКИМ). ДКИМ може да дефинира съдовата възраст и предклиничната атеросклероза. По-късните стадии на атеросклероза (плаки, стенози) също могат да бъдат визуализирани в присъствие или отсъствие на удебелен интима-медия комплекс. ДКИМ трябва да се измерва само на стандартно място с ултразвукови апарати с висока аксиална резолюция – на отдалечената стена на края на общата каротидна артерия и каротидния булбус по време на теледиастола. Крайната ДКИМ се определя от средните стойности на дебелината на двете общи каротидни артерии. ***** Summary. The first morphological abnormalities of arterial wall can be visualized by B-mode ultrasonography. The carotid echography has been used in a number of studies to monitor the intima-media thickness (IMT) of the carotid arteries. The carotid IMT may define the vascular age and preclinical atherosclerosis. Later stages of atherosclerosis (plaques, stenoses) can also be identified either coincident with or in the absence of thickening intima-media complex. Carotid IMT should be measured only at standard place using high-axial resolution ultrasound system – on the far wall in the end of common carotid artery and at carotid bulb in end-diastole. The final carotid IMT is defined as averaged values of thickness ot both common carotid arteries

    The Russian-Byzantine treaty of 971: Theophilos and Sveneld

    No full text
    This article investigates certain textual problems which exist in the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 971. The text of this document survives only in the medieval Russian chronicle, 'Povest’ Vremennikh Let'. Two problems are investigated. The first one concerns the name of synkellos Theophilos, and the second deals with the name of Sveneld. The author proposes that there was a metathesis in the former name and that, in the original Byzantine text, he was known as Philotheos, as referred to by Leo the Deacon for the events in 969. The metathesis in his name may illuminate certain problems of transmission of historical information between different Byzantine and early Russian works. The author argues not only that Leo the Deacon and John Scylitzes drew on a number of common sources (at least two), but so did Scylitzes and the writer of PVL, in particular for the section concerning the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 971.L’auteur examine quelques problèmes textuels concernant le traité russo-byzantin de 971. Le texte de ce document est conservé seulement dans la chronique russe médiévale «Povest’ Vremennikh Let». Deux problèmes sont examinés. Le premier concerne le nom du synkellos Théophilos, le second a trait au nom de Sveneld. L’auteur suppose qu’il y a eu une métathèse dans le premier nom et que, dans le texte byzantin original, il était appelé Philothéos, tel qu’il est cité par Léon le Diacre pour les événements de 969. La métathèse dans son nom peut éclairer certains problèmes de transmission de l’information historique entre diverses oeuvres byzantines et russes primitives. L’auteur soutient non seulement que Léon le Diacre et Jean Skylitzès se sont appuyés sur quelques sources communes (au moins deux), mais que c’est le cas de Skylitzès et de l’auteur de la chronique russe, en particulier pour la section concernant le traité russo-byzantin de 971.Raev Mikhail. The Russian-Byzantine treaty of 971: Theophilos and Sveneld. In: Revue des études byzantines, tome 64-65, 2006-2007. pp. 329-340

    Emotional policies: Introducing branding as a tool for science diplomacy

    No full text
    This article seeks to expand the science diplomacy (SD) discourse by introducing the concept of branding, focusing on its use as a tool for nation state decision makers. Although the current literature on SD has explored the relation between science and diplomacy, the question of how individual science projects can effectively aid SD has been left largely unanswered. Drawing on the SD as well as on the place and policy branding literature, a framework for the analysis and conceptualization of branding as a tool for SD and for Public Diplomacy in general is developed. This framework introduces three distinct branding styles: nation branding, policy branding and policy tool branding. The applicability of the framework is demonstrated by the comparison of two cases of branding by nation state policy makers: branding in the field of German transnational education and in the science and knowledge-based Dutch Water Diplomacy. The German case study shows that branding activities relating to ‘German’ SD are fragmented and focus mostly on individual projects, while the use of transnational education as an instrument to advance policy branding or nation branding remains largely underdeveloped. Such a lopsided branding process undermines the effectiveness of branding as an effective SD tool. In contrast, the potential of coordinated branding strategies as a foreign policy tool becomes apparent in the ‘Dutch Delta Approach’. In this centralised and coordinated branding process, activities on all three proposed branding layers were implemented, effectively employing branding to increase the visibility of the Dutch nation state, increase the attraction of its high-tech water management sector as well as to rejuvenate the Netherland’s bi-lateral relations with selected partner countries. Branding, as we argue, should be added to the analysis of contemporary science diplomacy as well as of broader foreign policies, adding to the understanding of SD as an instrument of cross-border communication and global opinion shaping. The paper ends with a discussion of potential limitations of branding, in order to illustrate that branding can be an effective instrument but should not be seen as an international relations panacea.Organisation & Governanc

    The Russian-Byzantine treaty of 971: Theophilos and Sveneld

    No full text
    This article investigates certain textual problems which exist in the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 971. The text of this document survives only in the medieval Russian chronicle, 'Povest’ Vremennikh Let'. Two problems are investigated. The first one concerns the name of synkellos Theophilos, and the second deals with the name of Sveneld. The author proposes that there was a metathesis in the former name and that, in the original Byzantine text, he was known as Philotheos, as referred to by Leo the Deacon for the events in 969. The metathesis in his name may illuminate certain problems of transmission of historical information between different Byzantine and early Russian works. The author argues not only that Leo the Deacon and John Scylitzes drew on a number of common sources (at least two), but so did Scylitzes and the writer of PVL, in particular for the section concerning the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 971. </jats:p
    corecore