The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has produced two different narratives in India. One, here described as "historical," looks back to the pandemics of the colonial past-bubonic plague from 1896, influenza in 1918-19-as a source of comparisons, lessons, and dire warnings for the present. This narrative envisages the reenactment of past scenes, including flight from the cities, victimization of the poor, and the questioning of state authority. The other narrative, here called "insurgent," questions the value of historical analogies, doubts that history ever substantially repeats itself, and stresses the specificity of postcolonial Indian politics and health. While recognizing the validity of both narratives, the author urges caution in employing colonial history to critique contemporary events and, while recognizing the 1890s plague as a watershed moment, questions whether even the most devastating pandemics (such as 1918's influenza) necessarily result in profound social, political, and health care changes.COVID-19 is the most invasive global crisis in the postwar era, jeopardizing all dimensions of human activity. By theorizing COVID-19 as a public bad, I shed light on one of the great debates of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries regarding the relationship between the United States and liberal international order (LIO). Conceptualizing the pandemic as a public bad, I analyze its consequences for US hegemony. Unlike other international public bads and many of the most important public goods that make up the LIO, the COVID-19 public bad not only has some degree of rivalry but can be made partially excludable, transforming it into more of a club good. Domestically, I demonstrate how the failure to effectively manage the COVID-19 public bad has compromised America's ability to secure the health of its citizens and the domestic economy, the very foundations for its international leadership. These failures jeopardize US provision of other global public goods. Internationally, I show how the US has already used the crisis strategically to reinforce its opposition to free international movement while abandoning the primary international institution tasked with fighting the public bad, the World Health Organization (WHO). While the only area where the United States has exercised leadership is in the monetary sphere, I argue this feat is more consequential for maintaining hegemony. However, even monetary hegemony could be at risk if the pandemic continues to be mismanaged.Deliberations over the COVID-19 pandemic's long-term effects on the global balance of power have spurred a large and rancorous debate, including speculation about a shift in the definition of national security and prescriptions about where it should focus. That argument will no doubt continue. But we argue that one consequence is already evident the United States has spent the last seventy years portraying itself as a security provider in all key domains-for many an intrinsic component of its status as a global leader. One reasonable broad conclusion from the US struggle with COVID-19 is that it has further forfeited its broad leadership position on the basis of its behaviour. Yet that, although possibly true, would only portray one element of the story. The more profound insight exposed by COVID-19 is of a new reality in a world where both naturogenic and anthropogenic threats pose immense national security challenges, decades of mistaken assumptions and policy choices have created a new environment, one where the United States has been redefined as a security consumer, at least in terms of international public health issues associated with the spread of deadly infectious diseases.
  Recovery after intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) is often slower than ischemic stroke. Despite this, ICH research often quantifies recovery using the same outcome measures obtained at the same timepoints as ischemic stroke. The primary objective of this scoping review is to map the existing literature to determine when and how outcomes are being measured in prospective studies of recovery after ICH.
 
  We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science from inception to November 2019, for prospective studies that included patients with ICH. Two investigators independently screened the studies and extracted data around timing and type of outcome assessment.
 
  Among the 9761 manuscripts reviewed, 395 met inclusion criteria, of which 276 were observational studies and 129 were interventional studies that enrolled 66274 patients. Mortality was assessed in 93% of studies. Functional outcomes were assessed in 85% of studies. The most frequently used functional assessment tool was the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) (60%), followed by the National Institute of Health Stroke Severity Scale (22%) and Barthel Index (21%). The most frequent timepoint at which mortality was assessed was 90 days (41%), followed by 180 days (18%) and 365 days (12%), with 2% beyond 1 year. The most frequent timepoint used for assessing mRS was 90 days (62%), followed by 180 days (21%) and 365 days (17%).
 
  While most prospective ICH studies report mortality and functional outcomes only at 90 days, a significant proportion do so at 1 year and beyond. Our results support the feasibility of collecting long-term outcome data to optimally assess recovery in ICH.
 While most prospective ICH studies report mortality and functional outcomes only at 90 days, a significant proportion do so at 1 year and beyond. Our results support the feasibility of collecting long-term outcome data to optimally assess recovery in ICH.
  In locally advanced rectal cancer, longer delay to surgery after neoadjuvant radiotherapy increases the likelihood of histopathological tumour response. Chronomodulated radiotherapy in rectal cancer has recently been reported as a factor increasing tumour response to neoadjuvant treatment in patients having earlier surgery, with patients receiving a larger proportion of afternoon treatments showing improved response. This paper aims to replicate this work by exploring the impact of these two temporal factors, independently and in combination, on histopathological tumour response in rectal cancer patients.
 
  A retrospective review of all patients with rectal adenocarcinoma who received long course (≥24 fractions) neoadjuvant radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy at a tertiary referral centre was conducted.  https://www.selleckchem.com/products/apoptozole.html  Delay to surgery and radiotherapy treatment time were correlated to clinicopathologic characteristics with a particular focus on tumour regression grade. A review of the literature and meta-analysis were also conducted to ascertain the impact of time to surgery from preoperative radiotherapy on tumour regression.