The Experts below are selected from a list of 311982 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Jurgen Finsterbusch - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the parallel antiparallel signal difference in double wave vector diffusion weighted mr at short mixing times a phase evolution perspective
Journal of Magnetic Resonance, 2011Co-Authors: Jurgen FinsterbuschAbstract:Abstract Experiments with two diffusion weightings applied in direct succession in a single acquisition, so-called double- or two-wave-vector diffusion-weighting (DWV) experiments at short mixing times, have been shown to be a promising tool to estimate cell or compartment sizes, e.g. in living tissue. The basic theory for such experiments predicts that the signal decays for parallel and antiparallel wave vector orientations differ by a factor of three for small wave vectors. This seems to be surprising because in standard, single-wave-vector experiments the polarity of the diffusion weighting has no influence on the signal attenuation. Thus, the question how this difference can be understood more pictorially is often raised. In this rather educational manuscript, the phase evolution during a DWV experiment for simple geometries, e.g. diffusion between parallel, impermeable planes oriented perpendicular to the wave vectors, is considered step-by-step and demonstrates how the signal difference develops. Considering the populations of the phase distributions obtained, the factor of three between the signal decays which is predicted by the theory can be reproduced. Furthermore, the intermediate signal decay for orthogonal wave vector orientations can be derived when investigating diffusion in a box. Thus, the presented “phase gymnastics” approach may help to understand the signal modulation observed in DWV experiments at short mixing times.
-
a tensor model and measures of microscopic anisotropy for double wave vector diffusion weighting experiments with long mixing times
Journal of Magnetic Resonance, 2010Co-Authors: Marco Lawrenz, Martin Koch, Jurgen FinsterbuschAbstract:Experiments with two diffusion-weighting periods applied successively in a single experiment, so-called double-wave-vector (DWV) diffusion-weighting experiments, are a promising tool for the investigation of material or tissue structure on a microscopic level, e.g. to determine cell or compartment sizes or to detect pore or cell anisotropy. However, the theoretical descriptions presented so far for experiments that aim to investigate the microscopic anisotropy with a long mixing time between the two diffusion weightings, are limited to certain wave vector orientations, specific pore shapes, and macroscopically isotropic samples. Here, the signal equations for fully restricted diffusion are re-investigated in more detail. A general description of the signal behavior for arbitrary wave vector directions, pore or cell shapes, and orientation distributions of the pores or cells is obtained that involves a fourth-order tensor approach. From these equations, a rotationally invariant measure of the microscopic anisotropy, termed MA, is derived that yields information complementary to that of the (macroscopic) anisotropy measures of standard diffusion-tensor acquisitions. Furthermore, the detailed angular modulation for arbitrary cell shapes with an isotropic orientation distribution is derived. Numerical simulations of the MR signal with a Monte-Carlo algorithms confirm the theoretical considerations. The extended theoretical description and the introduction of a reliable measure of the microscopic anisotropy may help to improve the applicability and reliability of corresponding experiments.
Atsushi Inaba - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Development of weighting factors for G20 countries—explore the difference in environmental awareness between developed and emerging countries
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2018Co-Authors: Norihiro Itsubo, Koichi Kuriyama, Kayo Murakami, Koji Tokimatsu, Kentaro Yoshida, Atsushi InabaAbstract:PurposeWeighting is one of the steps involved in LCIA. This enables us to integrate various environmental impacts and facilitates the interpretation of environmental information. Many different weighting methodologies have already been proposed, and the results of many case studies with a single index have been published. LIME2 (Itsubo et al. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(4):488-498, 2012 ) developed weighting factors for four different areas of protection that reflect environmental awareness among the Japanese public. This method has already been widely used in Japan, but difficulties exist universally using the Japanese weighting factors around the world. It is presumed that the weighting varies depending on economic, cultural, and social conditions, and there are still few cases in which weighting factors have been specifically invented or studied in consideration of variance in these elements. This study attempted to develop weighting factors applicable to the Group of Twenty (G20) countries with a view toward developing those that could be used in different countries. In the study, a survey was conducted with a uniform questionnaire in G20 countries to compare the weighting factors calculated for different countries, along with an investigation on development and utilization of global weighting factors.MethodsA conjoint analysis was conducted to give a weighting between the four areas of protection defined by LIME: human health, social assets, biodiversity, and primary production. The analysis is suitable for measuring the value of each of the multiple attributes of the environment. This study conducted a questionnaire in all the G20 member states. The survey puts priority on making the questions understood by the respondents and minimizing bias, adopting interviews, visiting surveys, and surveys in venues in the 11 emerging countries. In the developed countries, Internet surveys were conducted after confirming that their results are statistically significant from the pretest results in these states. In both surveys, random sampling was performed to take 200–250 samples (households) in each of the emerging countries and 500–600 samples in each of the developed countries. The surveys collected a total of 6400 responses. Statistical values based on this model can be considered to reflect the variability between each individual’s environmental thoughts. The calculated results can then be used to compare the variety of environmental thoughts in developed and emerging countries.Results and discussionThe study was able to obtain two different kinds of results: dimensionless weighting factors and economic indicators using the amount of willingness to pay. This paper solely presents the former. The weighting factors in the entire G20 community, in the group of developed countries (G8) and in the group of emerging countries (G20 states excluding the G8) and those in the individual G20 countries, were estimated. The calculated values were significant statistically at the 1 % level (all p values for the safeguard subject coefficients were less than 0.0001), with the exception of monetary attributes for several emerging countries. Converted into dimensionless values, so that the total sum for the four subjects equals 1, the weighting factor was the highest for human health in the entire G20 circles, at 0.34, followed by biodiversity at 0.29, and primary production at 0.23. The weighting for social assets was relatively poor, at 0.13. In the G8 developed states, the figures of biodiversity and primary production were relatively higher than those of the same two subjects in the full G20. Biodiversity had the highest value, at 0.34, and was followed by human health at 0.30. On the other hand, in emerging countries, the weighting of health impacts was particularly significant, at 0.44, whereas the three other subjects had almost equivalent weightings—biodiversity at 0.19, social assets at 0.18, and primary product at 0.18. The weighting factors by country and the variance of preference intensities by country showed minor differences among developed countries while they reflected considerable differences among emerging countries.ConclusionsAccurate weighting factors representing the environmental attitudes of the world and national public are needed in order to conduct general purpose LCA. This study is the world’s first to conduct surveys with the use of the same questionnaire not only in developed countries but also in emerging countries, and to compare the findings. A total of 6400 responses were obtained via interviews and Internet surveys. The survey thus gained a statistically significant result on all the environmental attributes including the weighting factors for the G20 circles, G8 states, emerging countries exclusive of the G8 states, and individual countries in which surveys took place. The results have revealed a relatively minor difference in weighting factors and variation coefficients between the areas of protection in the developed countries whereas a considerable difference was observed between those subjects in emerging countries.
-
development of weighting factors for g20 countries explore the difference in environmental awareness between developed and emerging countries
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2018Co-Authors: Norihiro Itsubo, Koichi Kuriyama, Kayo Murakami, Koji Tokimatsu, Kentaro Yoshida, Atsushi InabaAbstract:Weighting is one of the steps involved in LCIA. This enables us to integrate various environmental impacts and facilitates the interpretation of environmental information. Many different weighting methodologies have already been proposed, and the results of many case studies with a single index have been published. LIME2 (Itsubo et al. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(4):488-498, 2012) developed weighting factors for four different areas of protection that reflect environmental awareness among the Japanese public. This method has already been widely used in Japan, but difficulties exist universally using the Japanese weighting factors around the world. It is presumed that the weighting varies depending on economic, cultural, and social conditions, and there are still few cases in which weighting factors have been specifically invented or studied in consideration of variance in these elements. This study attempted to develop weighting factors applicable to the Group of Twenty (G20) countries with a view toward developing those that could be used in different countries. In the study, a survey was conducted with a uniform questionnaire in G20 countries to compare the weighting factors calculated for different countries, along with an investigation on development and utilization of global weighting factors. A conjoint analysis was conducted to give a weighting between the four areas of protection defined by LIME: human health, social assets, biodiversity, and primary production. The analysis is suitable for measuring the value of each of the multiple attributes of the environment. This study conducted a questionnaire in all the G20 member states. The survey puts priority on making the questions understood by the respondents and minimizing bias, adopting interviews, visiting surveys, and surveys in venues in the 11 emerging countries. In the developed countries, Internet surveys were conducted after confirming that their results are statistically significant from the pretest results in these states. In both surveys, random sampling was performed to take 200–250 samples (households) in each of the emerging countries and 500–600 samples in each of the developed countries. The surveys collected a total of 6400 responses. Statistical values based on this model can be considered to reflect the variability between each individual’s environmental thoughts. The calculated results can then be used to compare the variety of environmental thoughts in developed and emerging countries. The study was able to obtain two different kinds of results: dimensionless weighting factors and economic indicators using the amount of willingness to pay. This paper solely presents the former. The weighting factors in the entire G20 community, in the group of developed countries (G8) and in the group of emerging countries (G20 states excluding the G8) and those in the individual G20 countries, were estimated. The calculated values were significant statistically at the 1 % level (all p values for the safeguard subject coefficients were less than 0.0001), with the exception of monetary attributes for several emerging countries. Converted into dimensionless values, so that the total sum for the four subjects equals 1, the weighting factor was the highest for human health in the entire G20 circles, at 0.34, followed by biodiversity at 0.29, and primary production at 0.23. The weighting for social assets was relatively poor, at 0.13. In the G8 developed states, the figures of biodiversity and primary production were relatively higher than those of the same two subjects in the full G20. Biodiversity had the highest value, at 0.34, and was followed by human health at 0.30. On the other hand, in emerging countries, the weighting of health impacts was particularly significant, at 0.44, whereas the three other subjects had almost equivalent weightings—biodiversity at 0.19, social assets at 0.18, and primary product at 0.18. The weighting factors by country and the variance of preference intensities by country showed minor differences among developed countries while they reflected considerable differences among emerging countries. Accurate weighting factors representing the environmental attitudes of the world and national public are needed in order to conduct general purpose LCA. This study is the world’s first to conduct surveys with the use of the same questionnaire not only in developed countries but also in emerging countries, and to compare the findings. A total of 6400 responses were obtained via interviews and Internet surveys. The survey thus gained a statistically significant result on all the environmental attributes including the weighting factors for the G20 circles, G8 states, emerging countries exclusive of the G8 states, and individual countries in which surveys took place. The results have revealed a relatively minor difference in weighting factors and variation coefficients between the areas of protection in the developed countries whereas a considerable difference was observed between those subjects in emerging countries.
Martin Koch - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a tensor model and measures of microscopic anisotropy for double wave vector diffusion weighting experiments with long mixing times
Journal of Magnetic Resonance, 2010Co-Authors: Marco Lawrenz, Martin Koch, Jurgen FinsterbuschAbstract:Experiments with two diffusion-weighting periods applied successively in a single experiment, so-called double-wave-vector (DWV) diffusion-weighting experiments, are a promising tool for the investigation of material or tissue structure on a microscopic level, e.g. to determine cell or compartment sizes or to detect pore or cell anisotropy. However, the theoretical descriptions presented so far for experiments that aim to investigate the microscopic anisotropy with a long mixing time between the two diffusion weightings, are limited to certain wave vector orientations, specific pore shapes, and macroscopically isotropic samples. Here, the signal equations for fully restricted diffusion are re-investigated in more detail. A general description of the signal behavior for arbitrary wave vector directions, pore or cell shapes, and orientation distributions of the pores or cells is obtained that involves a fourth-order tensor approach. From these equations, a rotationally invariant measure of the microscopic anisotropy, termed MA, is derived that yields information complementary to that of the (macroscopic) anisotropy measures of standard diffusion-tensor acquisitions. Furthermore, the detailed angular modulation for arbitrary cell shapes with an isotropic orientation distribution is derived. Numerical simulations of the MR signal with a Monte-Carlo algorithms confirm the theoretical considerations. The extended theoretical description and the introduction of a reliable measure of the microscopic anisotropy may help to improve the applicability and reliability of corresponding experiments.
Marco Lawrenz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a tensor model and measures of microscopic anisotropy for double wave vector diffusion weighting experiments with long mixing times
Journal of Magnetic Resonance, 2010Co-Authors: Marco Lawrenz, Martin Koch, Jurgen FinsterbuschAbstract:Experiments with two diffusion-weighting periods applied successively in a single experiment, so-called double-wave-vector (DWV) diffusion-weighting experiments, are a promising tool for the investigation of material or tissue structure on a microscopic level, e.g. to determine cell or compartment sizes or to detect pore or cell anisotropy. However, the theoretical descriptions presented so far for experiments that aim to investigate the microscopic anisotropy with a long mixing time between the two diffusion weightings, are limited to certain wave vector orientations, specific pore shapes, and macroscopically isotropic samples. Here, the signal equations for fully restricted diffusion are re-investigated in more detail. A general description of the signal behavior for arbitrary wave vector directions, pore or cell shapes, and orientation distributions of the pores or cells is obtained that involves a fourth-order tensor approach. From these equations, a rotationally invariant measure of the microscopic anisotropy, termed MA, is derived that yields information complementary to that of the (macroscopic) anisotropy measures of standard diffusion-tensor acquisitions. Furthermore, the detailed angular modulation for arbitrary cell shapes with an isotropic orientation distribution is derived. Numerical simulations of the MR signal with a Monte-Carlo algorithms confirm the theoretical considerations. The extended theoretical description and the introduction of a reliable measure of the microscopic anisotropy may help to improve the applicability and reliability of corresponding experiments.
Norihiro Itsubo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Development of weighting factors for G20 countries—explore the difference in environmental awareness between developed and emerging countries
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2018Co-Authors: Norihiro Itsubo, Koichi Kuriyama, Kayo Murakami, Koji Tokimatsu, Kentaro Yoshida, Atsushi InabaAbstract:PurposeWeighting is one of the steps involved in LCIA. This enables us to integrate various environmental impacts and facilitates the interpretation of environmental information. Many different weighting methodologies have already been proposed, and the results of many case studies with a single index have been published. LIME2 (Itsubo et al. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(4):488-498, 2012 ) developed weighting factors for four different areas of protection that reflect environmental awareness among the Japanese public. This method has already been widely used in Japan, but difficulties exist universally using the Japanese weighting factors around the world. It is presumed that the weighting varies depending on economic, cultural, and social conditions, and there are still few cases in which weighting factors have been specifically invented or studied in consideration of variance in these elements. This study attempted to develop weighting factors applicable to the Group of Twenty (G20) countries with a view toward developing those that could be used in different countries. In the study, a survey was conducted with a uniform questionnaire in G20 countries to compare the weighting factors calculated for different countries, along with an investigation on development and utilization of global weighting factors.MethodsA conjoint analysis was conducted to give a weighting between the four areas of protection defined by LIME: human health, social assets, biodiversity, and primary production. The analysis is suitable for measuring the value of each of the multiple attributes of the environment. This study conducted a questionnaire in all the G20 member states. The survey puts priority on making the questions understood by the respondents and minimizing bias, adopting interviews, visiting surveys, and surveys in venues in the 11 emerging countries. In the developed countries, Internet surveys were conducted after confirming that their results are statistically significant from the pretest results in these states. In both surveys, random sampling was performed to take 200–250 samples (households) in each of the emerging countries and 500–600 samples in each of the developed countries. The surveys collected a total of 6400 responses. Statistical values based on this model can be considered to reflect the variability between each individual’s environmental thoughts. The calculated results can then be used to compare the variety of environmental thoughts in developed and emerging countries.Results and discussionThe study was able to obtain two different kinds of results: dimensionless weighting factors and economic indicators using the amount of willingness to pay. This paper solely presents the former. The weighting factors in the entire G20 community, in the group of developed countries (G8) and in the group of emerging countries (G20 states excluding the G8) and those in the individual G20 countries, were estimated. The calculated values were significant statistically at the 1 % level (all p values for the safeguard subject coefficients were less than 0.0001), with the exception of monetary attributes for several emerging countries. Converted into dimensionless values, so that the total sum for the four subjects equals 1, the weighting factor was the highest for human health in the entire G20 circles, at 0.34, followed by biodiversity at 0.29, and primary production at 0.23. The weighting for social assets was relatively poor, at 0.13. In the G8 developed states, the figures of biodiversity and primary production were relatively higher than those of the same two subjects in the full G20. Biodiversity had the highest value, at 0.34, and was followed by human health at 0.30. On the other hand, in emerging countries, the weighting of health impacts was particularly significant, at 0.44, whereas the three other subjects had almost equivalent weightings—biodiversity at 0.19, social assets at 0.18, and primary product at 0.18. The weighting factors by country and the variance of preference intensities by country showed minor differences among developed countries while they reflected considerable differences among emerging countries.ConclusionsAccurate weighting factors representing the environmental attitudes of the world and national public are needed in order to conduct general purpose LCA. This study is the world’s first to conduct surveys with the use of the same questionnaire not only in developed countries but also in emerging countries, and to compare the findings. A total of 6400 responses were obtained via interviews and Internet surveys. The survey thus gained a statistically significant result on all the environmental attributes including the weighting factors for the G20 circles, G8 states, emerging countries exclusive of the G8 states, and individual countries in which surveys took place. The results have revealed a relatively minor difference in weighting factors and variation coefficients between the areas of protection in the developed countries whereas a considerable difference was observed between those subjects in emerging countries.
-
development of weighting factors for g20 countries explore the difference in environmental awareness between developed and emerging countries
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2018Co-Authors: Norihiro Itsubo, Koichi Kuriyama, Kayo Murakami, Koji Tokimatsu, Kentaro Yoshida, Atsushi InabaAbstract:Weighting is one of the steps involved in LCIA. This enables us to integrate various environmental impacts and facilitates the interpretation of environmental information. Many different weighting methodologies have already been proposed, and the results of many case studies with a single index have been published. LIME2 (Itsubo et al. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(4):488-498, 2012) developed weighting factors for four different areas of protection that reflect environmental awareness among the Japanese public. This method has already been widely used in Japan, but difficulties exist universally using the Japanese weighting factors around the world. It is presumed that the weighting varies depending on economic, cultural, and social conditions, and there are still few cases in which weighting factors have been specifically invented or studied in consideration of variance in these elements. This study attempted to develop weighting factors applicable to the Group of Twenty (G20) countries with a view toward developing those that could be used in different countries. In the study, a survey was conducted with a uniform questionnaire in G20 countries to compare the weighting factors calculated for different countries, along with an investigation on development and utilization of global weighting factors. A conjoint analysis was conducted to give a weighting between the four areas of protection defined by LIME: human health, social assets, biodiversity, and primary production. The analysis is suitable for measuring the value of each of the multiple attributes of the environment. This study conducted a questionnaire in all the G20 member states. The survey puts priority on making the questions understood by the respondents and minimizing bias, adopting interviews, visiting surveys, and surveys in venues in the 11 emerging countries. In the developed countries, Internet surveys were conducted after confirming that their results are statistically significant from the pretest results in these states. In both surveys, random sampling was performed to take 200–250 samples (households) in each of the emerging countries and 500–600 samples in each of the developed countries. The surveys collected a total of 6400 responses. Statistical values based on this model can be considered to reflect the variability between each individual’s environmental thoughts. The calculated results can then be used to compare the variety of environmental thoughts in developed and emerging countries. The study was able to obtain two different kinds of results: dimensionless weighting factors and economic indicators using the amount of willingness to pay. This paper solely presents the former. The weighting factors in the entire G20 community, in the group of developed countries (G8) and in the group of emerging countries (G20 states excluding the G8) and those in the individual G20 countries, were estimated. The calculated values were significant statistically at the 1 % level (all p values for the safeguard subject coefficients were less than 0.0001), with the exception of monetary attributes for several emerging countries. Converted into dimensionless values, so that the total sum for the four subjects equals 1, the weighting factor was the highest for human health in the entire G20 circles, at 0.34, followed by biodiversity at 0.29, and primary production at 0.23. The weighting for social assets was relatively poor, at 0.13. In the G8 developed states, the figures of biodiversity and primary production were relatively higher than those of the same two subjects in the full G20. Biodiversity had the highest value, at 0.34, and was followed by human health at 0.30. On the other hand, in emerging countries, the weighting of health impacts was particularly significant, at 0.44, whereas the three other subjects had almost equivalent weightings—biodiversity at 0.19, social assets at 0.18, and primary product at 0.18. The weighting factors by country and the variance of preference intensities by country showed minor differences among developed countries while they reflected considerable differences among emerging countries. Accurate weighting factors representing the environmental attitudes of the world and national public are needed in order to conduct general purpose LCA. This study is the world’s first to conduct surveys with the use of the same questionnaire not only in developed countries but also in emerging countries, and to compare the findings. A total of 6400 responses were obtained via interviews and Internet surveys. The survey thus gained a statistically significant result on all the environmental attributes including the weighting factors for the G20 circles, G8 states, emerging countries exclusive of the G8 states, and individual countries in which surveys took place. The results have revealed a relatively minor difference in weighting factors and variation coefficients between the areas of protection in the developed countries whereas a considerable difference was observed between those subjects in emerging countries.
