PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15850711

Consistent indexing of a (set of) single crystal SAED pattern(s) with the ProcessDiffraction program.

Abstract

A computer program called "ProcessDiffraction" helps indexing a set of single crystal selected area electron diffraction (SAED) patterns by determining which of the presumed structures can fit all the measured patterns simultaneously. Distances and angles are measured in the digitalized patterns with a graphical tool by clicking on the two shortest non-collinear vectors (spots), using user-supplied calibration data. Centers of the spots and center of the pattern are optionally refined by the program. Suggested individual indexing solutions (consistent with an assumed unit cell) are listed by the program for each pattern. Simulated patterns are also consulted to check if the shortest calculated distances coincide with measured ones. Common solutions for the set are selected by checking the angles between the suggested zone axes against the angles between the experimental goniometer settings. The indexing process is manually controlled by selecting the candidate structures (one-by-one) for indexing and by specifying the tolerances for d-values, plane angles and zone angles. Patterns of any crystal system can be indexed successfully. Although error bars are larger in electron diffraction than in X-ray diffraction (XRD), frequently, many unrelated indexings are possible for any one electron diffraction pattern (irrespective of the indexing method), a set of SAED patterns can generally be indexed unambiguously, i.e. the three-dimensional reciprocal space can be identified correctly. Two other tools also help planning tilting experiments: zones along a plane can be listed (with their angles extended from a pre-selected zone in that plane) and zones lying at a given angle (specified with a tolerance) from a zone can also be identified (as they are situated between two cones). Another tool searches the XRD database directly either for advice on possible structures for a composition or to help calibration.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

János L Lábár. 2005-01-05. Consistent indexing of a (set of) single crystal SAED pattern(s) with the ProcessDiffraction program.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2004.12.004

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗