Wire-bow in situ measurements for powerful control of wire-wear during diamond-wire crystalline silicon sawing.

Original instrumental setups embedded in industrial-type multi-diamond-wire sawing equipment are presented for in situ measurements of the apparent wire diameter, the vertical force applied to the wire web, and the wire-web bow during the cutting of crystalline silicon bricks into wafers. The proportionality relationship between the vertical force and the wire bow during the cut of a Czochralski silicon brick is, for the first time, experimentally observed as expected by the theoretical calculations. As a result, the in situ bow measurement is shown to provide a direct control of the cutting efficiency, which is inversely proportional to the vertical force. In addition, the wire-wear evolution during successive cuts is analyzed using the in situ measurement of the apparent wire diameter together with the in situ bow measurements for equivalent cutting conditions using several bow sensors distributed above the wire web. The three-dimensional plot of the cutting efficiency resulting from the bow measurement processing gives access to the distribution of the cutting efficiency along the wire web during the progress of the cut. Given the homogeneous properties of the silicon material used, the cutting efficiency proves to be a representative of the wire-wear. Moreover, the unique capability of the in situ bow measurement to provide a distribution of the measurements on the wire web during the cut allows studying the wire web behavior and the wire cutting efficiency distribution for different cutting conditions. Thanks to the innovative design of the instrumentation coupled with a data analysis based on a deep understanding of the involved physical phenomena, the in situ bow measurement is demonstrated to be a powerful tool to optimize the cutting process in terms of wafer quality and cost efficiency. Moreover, it can provide real-time information opening the door for tuning the parameters during the cutting process.

Practical considerations for the evaluation and management of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in adults.

Attention deficit with or without hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most frequent neuropsychiatric disorders, and affects 2-4% of adults. In contrast with many European countries, the identification and management of adult ADHD remains underdeveloped in France, and a subject of controversy. This review provides a practical update on current knowledge about ADHD in adults for French-speaking professionals who have to detect or manage adult patients with ADHD. ADHD is classified as a neurodevelopmental disorder in the recent update of the international diagnostic classification. While symptoms and impairment due to ADHD are frequently severe during childhood, they often evolve as children grow older, with frequent persistent disabilities in adulthood. In adulthood, the clinical presentation, as in childhood, involves the symptom triad of inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity. However, differences are noted: hyperactivity is more often internalized, symptoms of inattention may be masked by anxiety symptoms or obsessive-like compensation strategies. ADHD is often diagnosed during childhood, but it is not rare for the diagnosis to be made later. Failure to recognise symptoms resulting in misdiagnosis, or alternatively well-developed compensation factors could be two underlying reasons for the long delay until diagnosis. Other symptoms, such as emotional deregulation or executive function-related symptoms are also usually observed in adults. In addition, in adults, ADHD is often associated with other psychiatric disorders (in 80% of cases); this makes the diagnosis even more difficult. These disorders encompass a broad spectrum, from mood disorders (unipolar or bipolar), to anxiety disorders, and other neurodevelopmental disorders and personality disorders, especially borderline and antisocial personality disorder. Substance-use disorders are very common, either as a consequence of impulsivity and emotional dysregulation or as an attempt at self-treatment. Sleep disorders, especially restless leg syndrome and hypersomnolence, could share common pathophysiological mechanisms with ADHD. ADHD and comorbidity-related symptoms are responsible for serious functional impairment, in various domains, leading to academic, social, vocational, and familial consequences. The impact on other psychiatric disorders as an aggravating factor should also be considered. The considerable disability and the poorer quality of life among adults with ADHD warrant optimal evaluation and management. The diagnostic procedure for ADHD among adults should be systematic. Once the positive diagnosis is made, the evaluation enables characterisation of the levels of severity and impairment at individual level. A full examination should also assess medical conditions associated with ADHD, to provide personalized care. In recent years, a growing number of assessment tools have been translated and validated in French providing a wide range of structured interviews and standardized self-report questionnaires for the evaluation of core and associated ADHD symptoms, comorbidities and functional impairment. The treatment of ADHD in adults is multimodal, and aims to relieve the symptoms, limit the burden of the disease, and manage comorbidities. The most relevant and validated psychological approaches are psycho-education, cognitive-behavioural therapy and "third wave therapies" with a specific focus on emotional regulation. Cognitive remediation and neurofeedback are promising strategies still under evaluation. Medications, especially psychostimulants, are effective for alleviating ADHD symptoms with a large effect size. Their safety and tolerance are satisfactory, although their long-term clinical benefit is still under discussion. In France, methylphenidate is the only stimulant available for the treatment of ADHD. Unfortunately, there is no authorization for its use among adults except in continuation after adolescence. Hence the prescription, which is subject to the regulations on narcotics, is off-label in France. This article aims to provide practical considerations for the management of ADHD and associated disorders in adults, in this particular French context.

[Supervised off-label prescribing of methylphenidate in adult ADHD]. / Prescriptions hors AMM supervisées de méthylphénidate dans le TDAH de l'adulte.

OBJECTIVE: Off-label prescription is a common practice in psychiatry, raising health and economic concerns. Collegial consultation could allow a framed prescription of treatments that are not authorized in specific indications. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity in adult populations (ADHD) is a striking example of a pathology where off-label prescription is frequent. First considered to be a childhood disorder, the awareness of this condition in adults is increasing, leading to the development of new clinical practices and treatments. However, the adult ADHD diagnosis and its management are still emerging in France despite a high prevalence. Treatment of adult ADHD relies on methylphenidate prescription, but the initiation of this drug is not authorized in adult populations. Methylphenidate is a central nervous system stimulant that is structurally close to amphetamine and acts as a norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitor. Due to these pharmacological properties, neuropsychiatric and cardiovascular side-effects could occur. Furthermore, its addictive potential has led France to classify it as a psychoactive drug, dispensed via secured prescription. The first prescription and the one-year follow-up are restricted to neurologists, paediatrics, psychiatrists and sleep disorders specialists at hospital. The objective of this article is to propose a multidisciplinary framework for the off-label prescription of methylphenidate in adult ADHD. METHODS: The Multidisciplinary Advice Consultation for Exceptional Addiction Treatments (Consultation d'Avis Multidisciplinaire de Traitements d'Exception en Addictologie CAMTEA) was first set up in Lille for the prescription of baclofen in alcohol dependence and was then extended to topiramate in binge eating disorder. This procedure has been adapted to the particularities of ADHD in adult populations, the differential diagnosis (bipolar disorder, depressive disorder, anxious disorder, personality disorder, substance use disorder) and the co-morbidities requiring a full psychiatric and neuropsychological assessment. Moreover, a particular attention has been paid to the monitoring of neuropsychiatric, cardiovascular and misuse risk because of the potential side-effects of methylphenidate. RESULTS: The proposed prescription framework is structured into several specialized consultations. A first psychiatric evaluation aims to diagnose adult ADHD, using the French version of the Diagnostisch Interview Voor ADHD 2.0 questionnaire (DIVA 2.0), and to assess the quality of life impact with the Weiss Functional Inventory Rating Scale (WIFRS). It also searches for the presence of differential diagnosis or co-morbidities. The second appointment consists of a pharmacological evaluation that aims to search for contraindications and potential drug interaction. A neuropsychological evaluation based on standardized tests (Weschler Adulte Intelligence Scale [WAIS IV], Conner's Continuous Performance Test 3 [CPT] and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personnality Inventory [MMPI]) is also required to evaluate neurocognitive disabilities and personality features. Once the parameters of the different assessments have been collected, the synthesis is presented during a multidisciplinary meeting in order to assess the risk-benefit ratio for each patient. Several specialties are involved in this multidisciplinary meeting: psychiatry, addictology, general medicine, addictovigilance, pharmacovigilance and neuropsychology. One strategy among three possibilities can be decided: (1) contraindication to treatment with methylphenidate, (2) attention deficit disorder that does not require medication management, and (3) indication of treatment with methylphenidate with the choice of the pharmacological form (immediate or prolonged release). A biological check-up and an electrocardiogram are carried out systematically before any treatment. If the decision is made to initiate treatment, it is started at the lowest dosage and followed by a titration phase. A weekly follow-up is carried out during the titration phase in order to assess treatment efficacy and safety. After treatment stabilization, the general practitioner can carry out the renewal, and the patient will be reassessed within the framework of the multidisciplinary consultation every 3 months. CONCLUSION: When an off-label prescription is being considered, it must comply with the basic rules of good clinical practice, and the benefit/risk ratio should be constantly reassessed. The proposed multidisciplinary framework, adapted to the characteristics of adult ADHD and the pharmacological properties of methylphenidate, appears to be an interesting strategy to meet the requirements of the good clinical practice. The complementary assessments carried out and the collegial framework allow enhancing the patient's follow-up and minimize the drug risk, particularly in the psychiatric, addictive and cardiovascular adverse events. Finally, this framework could also help the monitoring of other off-label treatments for ADHD, such as atomoxetine or guanfacine.

Emerging conflict in collaborative mapping: towards a deeper understanding?

In spatial planning and environmental management, maps are found very helpful in many situations, but in other situations they may also deepen conflicts or be ignored. This paper addresses the question what explains such phenomena, with particular emphasis on, and reference to, collaborative policymaking settings in the Netherlands. We have elaborated the concept of 'frames' and 'framing' to structure and analyze the function of maps in the context of deliberative policymaking. With help of discourse analysis, a method adopted from the policy sciences, we have observed ongoing multi-actor processes and focused on discussions around maps in several case studies. From the observations of both the maps themselves and the discussions and actions with the maps, we have interpreted the meaning and frames represented 'in' the map images, as well as the various perspectives of actors 'on' the collaborative use of the map. We have conceptualized three fundamentally different perspectives or frames on the function of maps in the decision-making process. The cross-frame debate over maps is illustrated with the recollection of one particular map-making example. We conclude that the conflicts observed in a number of case studies can be adequately explained with help of the three identified frames, and provide some recommendations for the profession of mapping.