CSP. V7.0 First-in-human clinical study with RNA-Immunotherapy combination of IVAC_W_bre1_uID and IVAC_M_uID for Individualized Tumor Therapy in Triple Negative Breast Cancer Patients
CSP. The language of CSP was first described by Hoare [Hoa85]. It is a pro- cess algebra that can be used to describe systems composed by interacting components, which are independent self-contained entities (called processes) with particular interfaces that are used to interact with the environment. In [Ros98], a new version of CSP was presented: it differs from Hoare’s ver- sion only on the treatment of alphabets. It is the later version that forms the basis of FDR, a tool that model-checks a machine-processable subset of CSP, called CSPM, which is a combination of an ASCII version of CSP with an expression language inspired on functional languages. A link between the CSP and CSPM syntaxes can be found in [Ros98]. In what follows, we briefly describe the most important CSP constructs. → The two most basic CSP processes are STOP and SKIP ; the former dead- locks, and the latter does nothing and terminates. If P is a CSP process, and a an event, then the prefixing a P is initially able to perform only a, and after performing a it behaves as P . A boolean guard may be associated with a process: given a predicate g , if the condition g is true, the process g & P behaves like P ; it deadlocks otherwise. Processes P 1 and P 2 can be combined in sequence using the sequence operator: P 1; P 2. This process executes the process P 2 after the execution of P 1 terminates. The external choice P 1 Q P 2 initially offers events of both processes. The performance of the first event resolves the choice in favour of the process that performs Figure 1: FDR GUI \ | | | H | | |
CSP. Notwithstanding anything in the CSP’s standard contract documents or terms and conditions to the contrary, any right or obligation of the CSP to defend any Governmental Entity or its employees, officers, board members, agents, representatives, officials, or other like individuals shall be modified/amended solely to include an obligation to indemnify and hold harmless the Governmental Entity and its employees, officers, board members, agents, representatives, officials, or other like individuals. For the avoidance of doubt, the CSP shall have no right to defend any Governmental Entity or its employees, officers, board members, agents, representatives, officials, or other like individuals or be deemed to have been granted settlement authority as it relates to any claims made against any Governmental Entity or its employees, officers, board members, agents, representatives, officials, or other like individuals.
CSP. Presenters Xxx Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxx Xxxxxxxx - University of York Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx - Federal University of Pernambuco Objectives The overall goals of the workshop on Communicating Sequential Processes (CSP) were to: • Give a general introduction into the concepts underlying the process algebra CSP, the concurrent part of Circus • To introduce participants to a variety of tool support for CSP Workshop Outline The workshop was given in three parts:
CSP. If a single suprathreshold pulse is applied during voluntary tonically activated muscle contraction it produces an MEP followed by a temporary cessation of EMG activity, known as the cortical silent period (CSP). It is typically defined as the time from the end of the MEP to the return of voluntary EMG. Several observations have indicated that the silent period is a separate phenomenon from the MEP. For example, it can be evoked at lower stimulus intensities than the MEP (Xxxxxx et al., 1992)Furthermore, changes in the background contraction and stimulus intensity have different effects on the silent period and MEP (Inghilleri et al. 1993). There are thought to be two components to the silent period, the first spinal in origin, the second cortical. For example, there is evidence that spinal excitability is decreased during the early part of the silent period with reduced H-reflex amplitudes, (Xxxx et al., 1991). It is thought that the later part is generated exclusively by long lasting inhibition originating within the motor cortex, for example, the duration of CSP is consistent with the duration of the (IPSP) elicited by GABAb receptor activation in pyramidal cells (Xxx et al., 2009). This is supported by the lengthening of the CSP by medications which increase the availability of GABAb in the synaptic cleft, tiagabine, (Xxxxxxx et al., 1999) and vigabatrin (Xxxxxxxxxxx et al., 2004). It is difficult to fully accept this as conclusive evidence that GABAb is involved however as these medications also facilitate GABAa availability, (Xxxxxxx et al., 1996).
CSP. The CSP has been utilised as an index of cortical inhibition in focal epilepsy with heterogeneous results. In patients on AEDs with focal motor seizures, CSP length was found to be shorter in the ipsilateral hemisphere in comparison to controls, (Xxxxxxxx et al., 1998). In support, (Xxxxx et al., 2005) observed shortened CSP in the ipsilateral hemisphere in medicated patients with focal epilepsies, which was more pronounced in extratemporal epilepsies. In contrast, CSP length was found to be increased in the ipsilateral hemisphere of patients with focal epilepsy on AEDs, (Xxxxxxxxx et al., 2000). Furthermore they reported an inter-hemispheric asymmetry in the CSP length as a function of stimulus intensity, suggesting that there may be a dysfunction of cortical excitability which is dependent on stimulus intensity. As with motor threshold it seems that there is a lack of convergence within the focal epilepsy CSP literature, most probably as a result of heterogeneous patient groups and methodological inconsistencies in measuring the length of the silent period.
CSP. Some studies have reported increased CSP in untreated patients with IGE, (Xxxxxxxxx et al., 2001), this was interpreted as increased intracortical inhibition to protect against seizure occurrence. In agreement with this, (Xxxxx et al., 2009) found increased CSP in 21 patients and, of further interest, in their asymptomatic relatives. Results from other studies have reported no differences between controls and patients however, in both untreated (Delvaux 2001),(Xxxxxx et al., 2009) and medicated patients (Xxxxxxxxxx et al., 2000).
CSP. Communicating Sequential Processes (CSP) [Hoa85, Xxx00, Xxx00x], a for- mal specification language introduced by Hoare [Hoa85] that is part of a class of languages that are known as process algebras, aims at describing communicating processes and interaction-driven computations. CSP’s domain of discourse consists of processes, which are self-contained components with particular interfaces through which they interact with their environment. The interface of a process is described as a set of events, which describe atomic, indivisible and instantaneous actions. A process is, therefore, characterised by the events it can engage in and their ordering. CSP is supported by an underlying theory to enable reasoning and model analysis about interaction and communication in this event-based model of interaction. In CSP, events are transmitted along communication channels, which carry messages of particular types. A channel has a set of associated events, cor- responding to all messages that may be carried through the channel. Process expressions are built out of events using a number of operators: • → Event prefixing, expressed in CSP as e P , describes a process that expects event e and then behaves as process P . • ||| Interleaving, described in CSP as P1 P2, defines a composition of two processes that execute in parallel without any synchronisation. The iterated version of interleaving, applies interleaving to any number of indexed processes: ||| i : N • P (i). • Parallel, P1 P2, describes the composition of two processes that exe- A cute in parallel synchronising on the set A of events. • Sequential, P1; P 2, describes a process that executes P1 until it termi- nates, and then executes P2. • Hiding, P \ N , makes a set N of events internal to a process P . • Interrupt, P1 Δ P2, defines a composition that behaves like P1, but can be interrupted by a synchronisation on one of the initial events of P2, which then takes over. • Throw, P1 Θ P 2, a relatively recent CSP operator [Ros10a], defines a A form of interrupt where any occurrence of an event e ∈ A within P1 hands control to P2. Every CSP process P has an alphabet αP . Its semantics is given using four models: traces, failures, divergences and infinite traces. These are under- stood as observations of possible executions of the process P, in terms of the events from αP that it can engage in, refuse, or lead to divergence. 3 FMI Formally: state of the art We present a survey of the FMI-related literature to be...
CSP bands and appurtenances shall be uniformly coated inside and outside with a 0.05 inch minimum thickness bituminous coating in accordance with AASHTO M 190.
CSP the provider of the services, provides the warranties specified in this section for the services. These warranties extend to you even though you do not purchase the services directly from CSP. You shall access these warranties through the Contractor. The Contractor guarantees CSP’s performance of CSP’s obligations under these warranties. CSP warrants that CSP will perform (i) cloud services as described in the specifications, and (ii) professional services in a professional manner in accordance with the service specifications. CSP warrants that cloud services are merchantable, fit for use for their particular purposes, and of satisfactory quality. If the services provided to you were not performed as warranted, you must promptly provide written notice to CSP that describes the deficiency in the services (including, as applicable, the service request number notifying CSP of the deficiency in the services). CSP warrants that CSP has established and will maintain procedures, in conformity with applicable and the most current industry standards, to guard against the inclusion of viruses in services, services environments, CSP programs, and other programs provided, or to which access is provided, under an order. For the purpose of this warranty and this paragraph, a “virus” is defined as any computer codes, instruction data, or program that can or may in whole or part disable, materially alter, or damage any software, data, or computer hardware or otherwise interfere with or prevent use of a computer system. If notified by you that you reasonably believe that services, the services environment, an CSP program, or another program contains a virus, and if CSP confirms that it does, then CSP shall (1) correct the services, services environment, CSP program, or other program, and (2) provide any resulting corrections to you, without charge, as soon as reasonably possible, but in no event later than 72 hours after your notification. If CSP cannot correct the services, services environment, CSP program, or other program and provide any resulting corrections to you within 72 hours after your notification regarding a virus, or if doing so is not commercially reasonable, then CSP or the Contractor shall refund within 30 days any amounts you paid in advance for the services unless you consent to CSP having more time to try to correct the problem and provide any resulting corrections to you.
