A fundamental goal of physics is to explain the broadest range of phenomena with the fewest underlying principles. Remarkably, seemingly disparate problems often exhibit identical mathematical descriptions. For instance, the rate of heat flow can be modeled using an equation very similar to that governing the speed of particle diffusion. Another example involves wave equations, which apply to the behavior of both water and sound. Scientists continuously seek such connections, which are rooted in the principle of the “universality” of underlying physical mechanisms.

In a study published in the journal Royal Society Open Science, researchers from Osaka University uncovered an unexpected connection between the equations for defects in a crystalline lattice and a well-known formula from electromagnetism. They demonstrated that the fields representing the strain generated around lattice dislocations in crystalline materials, modeled by Cartan’s First Structure Equation, obey the same equations as the more familiar Biot-Savart law. The former can be quite complex and challenging to visualize, while the latter describes how electric currents generate magnetic fields, and is essential for understanding numerous modern devices, including electric motors.

“Searching for Universality relationships can be valuable in emerging scientific fields, especially when the governing equations are newly established, and the nature of their solutions remains elusive,” explains lead author of the study Shunsuke Kobayashi. The Biot-Savart law states that an electrical current flowing through a wire will generate a magnetic field around itself represented by vectors that twist around like a vortex. Similarly, the effect of certain types of atomic dislocation in a crystalline lattice will induce a strain vector field on the surrounding atoms.

Using the analogous Biot-Savart law from electromagnetism, it will be possible to analytically determine the effect of dislocations, instead of the more arcane Cartan Structure Equations. “This discovery is expected to serve as a fundamental theory for describing the plastic deformation of crystalline materials, opening the way for a wide range of applications in material science,” senior author Ryuichi Tarumi says. The researchers also believe that finding these kinds of connections across areas of study can spur new discoveries.

Dr. Bruce Montgomery, a UW Medicine oncologist, hopes that patients won’t see these numbers and just throw up their hands in fear or resignation.

“Being diagnosed with prostate cancer is not a death knell,” said Montgomery, senior author of a literature and trial review that appeared in JAMA today. Montgomery is the clinical director of Genitourinary Oncology at Fred Hutch Cancer Center and University of Washington Medical Center, and a professor of medicine and urology at the UW School of Medicine.

He encourages patients to ask their primary-care doctor specific questions about this cancer too. Montgomery also encourages his fellow doctors to bring up the question of prostate cancer screening with their patients.

“Knowing whether there is prostate cancer and how risky it is can be the first step. Not every cancer needs to be treated,” he said. “Sometimes it’s safe to just watch and use active surveillance.”

A 2024 study coauthored by UW Medicine urologist Dr. Daniel Lin showed that active surveillance can be extremely safe: 0.1% of men who opted for surveillance died of prostate cancer after 10 years.

“We need to realize that prostate cancer is not one disease,” Montgomery said. “As a provider, you need to personalize your approach to the patient you’re seeing and to the disease that they personally are dealing with.”

For example, if a 50-year-old man develops prostate cancer that is only in the prostate, then more aggressive measures may need to be considered. However, if the disease, which can be slow-moving, develops in an 80-year-old patient, the discussion may be quite different.

“I’ve seen men that age (80s) develop prostate cancer and they’ve opted for no therapy,” he said. “They know that treatment, such as radiation, might make them feel terrible … so they just say ‘no.’

You, as their physician, he noted, must respect that.

“But if you’re 50 and have 25 to 30 years in which prostate cancer can become a bigger issue, even with the downsides, most patients should get therapy,” he said.

For more advanced prostate cancer, the number of effective treatments developed has markedly increased, as has the survival rate of men with whose prostate cancer has spread to other parts of their bodies.

“Metastatic prostate cancer needs therapy and research over the past 10 to 20 years has improved and continues to improve survival substantially,” he said. “Knowing who needs treatment, which treatment to use and when is both an art and a science.”

The article covered facts that men and their doctors should know, including:

• Approximately 1.5 million new cases of prostate cancer are diagnosed annually worldwide. Approximately 75% of cases are first detected when the cancer is still localized to the prostate. This early detection was associated with a five-year survival rate of nearly 100%.
• Management includes active surveillance, prostatectomy surgical removal of the prostate, or radiation therapy, depending on risk of progression.
• Approximately 10% of cases are diagnosed after the cancer has spread. This stage of prostate cancer has a five-year survival rate of 37%.
• The most common prostate cancer is adenocarcinoma, a type that starts in gland cells, and the median age at diagnosis is 67 years.
• More than 50% of prostate cancer risk is attributable to genetic factors and older age.

Prostate cancer came to public attention, both nationally and internationally last year, when famed local travel writer, Rick Steves, announced he had developed prostate cancer. He proclaimed last month via his X account, formerly Twitter, that after radiation and surgery at UW Medicine and Fred Hutch, he was cancer free.

The study, published in Psychoneuroendocrinology, is the first to examine weekly stress across 27 weeks of pregnancy to pinpoint when it most affects a newborn’s stress response and temperament — two measures that indicate infant biobehavioral reactivity.

“Prenatal stress has a well-established link to negative health, including mental health, outcomes in children and adults, but most studies conclude that the biggest effects are on girls. Our study found that not to be the case. It’s in fact, just different timing,” said Alytia Levendosky, lead investigator of the study and professor in MSU’s Department of Psychology.

The researchers recruited 396 pregnant women, specifically from a high stress-risk population due to low income and/or exposure to intimate partner violence. Weekly stress assessments were conducted via email or text from week 15 through week 41 of pregnancy. At six months postpartum, infant cortisol levels were collected before and after a mildly stressful laboratory task to see how their hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal system, or HPA axis, responded to stress. Mothers also reported on infant temperament.

The study found periods of higher sensitivity to stress in both mid and late gestation but found that girls and boys had differing patterns of sensitivity. The data showed that experiencing stress in mid-gestation affected girls’ HPA axis and temperament, while late gestation stress impacted boys. Previous studies in this field stopped their last stress assessment between 32-34 weeks. Because this study ran through week 41, Levendosky and her team were able to locate the time that was most sensitive for boys.

“This study is an essential step in correcting our understanding around prenatal stress effects for boys and girls,” said Joseph Lonstein, investigator on the study and professor in MSU’s Department of Psychology. “We hope that our findings inspire additional research so we can better understand what is happening in fetal brain development across pregnancy and how it is affected by stress.”

Current funding allows the team of researchers to continue following these participants until the age of four — with assessments at 2.5 years old and again at 4 years old. Amy Nuttall, co-author of this study and associate professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at MSU, hopes to continue the study through even later childhood.