214,710 research outputs found
An overview of the ATLAS High Level Trigger Dataflow and Supervision.
No full textThe ATLAS high-level trigger (HLT) system provides software-based event selection after the initial LVL1 hardware trigger. It is composed of two stages, the LVL2 trigger and the event filter (EF). The LVL2 trigger performs event selection with optimized algorithms using selected data guided by Region of Interest pointers provided by the LVL1 trigger. Those events selected by LVL2 are built into complete events, which are passed to the EF for a further stage of event selection and classification using off-line algorithms. Events surviving the EF selection are passed for off-line storage. The two stages of HLT are implemented on processor farms. The concept of distributing the selection process between LVL2 and EF is a key element in the architecture, which allows it to be flexible to changes (luminosity, detector knowledge, background conditions, etc.) Although there are some differences in the requirements between these subsystems there are many commonalities. An overview of the dataflow (event selection) and supervision (control, configuration, monitoring) activities in the HLT is given, highlighting where commonalities between the two subsystems can be exploited and indicating where requirements dictate that implementations differ. An HLT prototype system has been built at CERN. Functional testing is being carried out in order to validate the HLT architecture
Algorithms for the ATLAS High Level Trigger.
No full textFollowing rigorous software design and analysis methods, an object-based architecture has been developed to derive the second- and third-level trigger decisions for the future ATLAS detector at the LHC. The functional components within this system responsible for generating elements of the trigger decisions are algorithms running within the software architecture. Relevant aspects of the architecture are reviewed along with concrete examples of specific algorithms and their performance in "vertical" slices of various physics selection strategies
Second Level Trigger of the ATLAS Experiment at CERN's LHC.
No full textThe ATLAS trigger reduces the rate of interesting events to be recorded for off-line analysis in three successive levels from 40 MHz to ∼100 kHz, ∼2 kHz and ∼200 Hz. The high level triggers and data acquisition system are designed to profit from commodity computing and networking components to achieve the required performance. In this paper, we discuss data flow aspects of the design of the second level trigger (LVL2) and present results of performance measurements
Myofascial Trigger Points in Children With Tension-Type Headache: A New Diagnostic and Therapeutic Option
No full textThe goal of this pilot study was to evaluate the effect of a trigger point–specific physiotherapy on headache frequency, intensity, and duration in children with episodic or chronic tension-type headache. Patients were recruited from the special headache outpatient clinic. A total of 9 girls (mean age 13.1 years; range, 5-15 years) with the diagnosis of tension-type headache participated in the pilot study from May to September 2006 and received trigger point–specific physiotherapy twice a week by a trained physiotherapist.
After an average number of 6.5 therapeutic sessions, the headache frequency had been reduced by 67.7%, intensity by 74.3%, and duration by 77.3%. No side effects were noted during the treatment. These preliminary findings suggest a role for active trigger points in children with tension-type headache. Trigger point–specific physiotherapy seems to be an effective therapy in these children. Further prospective and controlled studies in a larger cohort are warranted
Studies for a common selection software environment in ATLAS : from the Level-2 trigger to the offline reconstruction.
No full textThe ATLAS High Level Trigger's (HLT) primary function of event selection will be accomplished with a Level-2 trigger farm and an event filter (EF) farm, both running software components developed in the ATLAS offline reconstruction framework. While this approach provides a unified software framework for event selection, it poses strict requirements on offline components critical for the Level-2 trigger. A Level-2 decision in ATLAS must typically be accomplished within 10 ms and with multiple event processing in concurrent threads. To address these constraints, prototypes have been developed that incorporate elements of the ATLAS data flow, high level trigger, and offline framework software. To realize a homogeneous software environment for offline components in the HLT, the Level-2 Steering Controller was developed. With electron/gamma- and muon-selection slices it has been shown that the required performance can be reached, if the offline components used are carefully designed and optimized for the application in the HLT
Report on the workshop on trends and patterns of EU multi-level governance
No full textGlobal and EU governance is disrupted by shifts in global power constellations, new technologies, the erosion of liberal democracies and the transformation of economic systems. In order to investigate these shifts in global governance, TRIGGER organised a workshop together with ESPAS (European Strategy and Policy Analysis System) at the European University Institute’s 2021 State of the Union Conference on 06 May 2021. The workshop on “Trends and Shifts in Global Governance and the Role of the EU” created a rich discussion on the many challenges the EU faces in times of crises, while also pointing out its potential to overcome these challenges
SMART Trigger versus Flow and Pressure trigger performance during auto-PEEP
No full textBackground
Intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure (auto-PEEP) is a common problem in mechanically ventilated patients, which can lead to adverse effects on patients comfort, hemodynamics, lung mechanics and gas exchange. Triggering systems play a crucial role in the delivery of mechanical ventilation, and advancements in smart triggering technology aim to optimize patient-ventilator synchrony. This bench study aims to compare the performance of the novel SMART Trigger to traditional pressure and flow triggers in the context of auto-PEEP.
Methods
A lung model simulating severe obstructive pattern with high compliance (80 ml/cmH2O) and high resistance 30 cmH2O/L/s was connected to the Panther 5 ventilator (Origin Medical, California, USA). The mode was set at Volume Controlled with a tidal volume of 700 ml and mandatory breath per min (BPM) of 10/min and Inspiratory time of 2 seconds to intentionally create auto-PEEP. Simulated spontaneous breaths set at 20 BPM with increasing muscle pressure (Pmus) from -1 to maximum of -25 or till full trigger of all breaths. Three different triggering systems were evaluated: SMART Trigger (ST sensitivity 1 to 7), pressure trigger (-1 cmH2O), and flow trigger (1 l/min). The range of auto-PEEP levels induced increased incrementally with the increase in the respiratory rate ranging from 3 cmH2O for 10 BPM, 8 for 15 BPM, to 13 for 20 BPM. The following parameters were assessed for each triggering system: trigger sensitivity (defined as the number of breaths triggered above the mandatory breaths), and the trigger response time (time it takes from the beginning of muscle effort to the initiation of the breath.
Results
100% of the breaths were triggered at Pmus (cmH2O) of -15 in the pressure trigger, -25 in flow trigger, -3 for ST1, -9 for ST2, -10 for ST3, -10 for ST4, -12 for ST5, -18 for ST 6, and -22 for ST 7.
Trigger time (msec) for flow was 0.135 ± 0.02, for pressure 0.141 ± 0.04, for ST 1-4: 0.076 ± 0.03, for ST 5-7: 0.104 ± 0.04. Multivariate analysis of variance test showed significant difference between the time to trigger P <0.001.
Conclusion
This bench study highlights the potential advantages of SMART Trigger technology over conventional pressure and flow triggers during auto-PEEP. The SMART Trigger enhanced sensitivity and rapid response might contribute to improved patient-ventilator synchrony. Further research and clinical studies are warranted to validate these findings and explore the impact of smart trigger technology on patient outcomes in real-world scenarios
Pulling the Trigger: A Systematic Literature Review of Trigger Warnings as a Strategy for Reducing Traumatization in Higher Education
No full textIn the academic context, trigger warnings can be defined as explicit statements that alert a group of learners that certain content explored or discussed in a learning environment may contain potentially distressing material. Extant research highlights a relationship between traumatization and trigger warnings; however, the extent to which trigger warnings constitute a method of best practice for reducing traumatization in higher education has not been addressed. Thus, a systematic literature review was conducted to explore this relationship. A search conducted across academic databases to locate peer-reviewed articles published between November 2010 and November 2020, combined three areas of interest: (1) “trigger warnings,” (2) “best practice,” and (3) “higher education.” Database searches and further manual searches yielded a total of 194 journal articles. Of these, 20 studies satisfied all inclusion criteria. Following the data extraction process, thematic analysis was employed to identify, analyze, and report patterns within data. The key themes identified through the review include trigger warnings as inclusive practice, as part of trauma-informed pedagogy, as ineffectual practice, and as harmful practice. The evidence suggests that when embedded as part of a broader, holistic, and trauma-informed approach, trigger warnings can be a valuable tool for assisting with the effective reduction of traumatization in the higher education context
Proceed with Caution: The Trouble with Trigger Warnings
No full textTrigger warnings are widely used in many universities – and increasingly, the wider world. In the US, the widest survey to date found an estimated half of all college professors used trigger warnings before introducing difficult content. In the UK, a survey earlier this year found 86% of undergraduate students support the use of trigger warnings. In Australia, policies vary between universities. In 2017, Monash University’s Student Association recommended the use of trigger warnings for courses that contain “emotionally confronting material” – with warnings placed on 15 courses in a pilot program. To understand the extent to which trigger warnings are an effective strategy for helping university students manage trauma, we conducted a systematic literature review collating and synthesising the existing qualitative research in this area
Trigger System Design Requirements
No full textThis document describes the requirements for the full multi-level BABAR trigger system as well as more specific functional and interface requirements for the Level 1 trigger. The three sections of this document are the (I) introduction to the physics, backgrounds and trigger, the (II) executive summary for the trigger system and the (III) detailed list of requirements. I-A The Electronics Syste
- …
