Loading [MathJax]/jax/element/mml/optable/GeneralPunctuation.js
Case report Topical Sections

Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis together with thyrotoxic heart disease in a Ghanaian man: case report and literature review

  • Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis (TPP) is an uncommon symmetrical paralysis usually affecting proximal muscles, which occurs in the hyperthyroid state with associated hypokalemia. It is more prevalent in East Asian males and extremely rare in blacks. Data on TPP is scarce in Africa and no report has been made in Ghana. We report a case of a middle-aged Ghanaian man who had three episodes of paralysis in all four limbs occurring at night with the second and third episodes requiring hospital visit. He had no clinical signs of hyperthyroidism during his first hospital visit but had developed clinical and biochemical evidence of hyperthyroidism on the second visit with serum potassium levels of 1.9 mmol/l; and he was eventually diagnosed with TPP. His paralysis resolved with correction of the hypokalemia. It is important to evaluate patients presenting with paralysis comprehensively. Less common differential diagnosis such as TPP may also be considered in such patients to ensure early diagnosis and treatment which can prevent complications.

    Citation: Gordon Manu Amponsah, Yaw Adu-Boakye, Maureen Nyarko, Henry Kofi Andoh, Kwaku Gyasi Danso, Manolo Agbenoku, Isaac Kofi Owusu. Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis together with thyrotoxic heart disease in a Ghanaian man: case report and literature review[J]. AIMS Medical Science, 2023, 10(1): 46-54. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2023005

    Related Papers:

    [1] Filippo Gazzola, Elsa M. Marchini . The moon lander optimal control problem revisited. Mathematics in Engineering, 2021, 3(5): 1-14. doi: 10.3934/mine.2021040
    [2] Aleksandr Dzhugan, Fausto Ferrari . Domain variation solutions for degenerate two phase free boundary problems. Mathematics in Engineering, 2021, 3(6): 1-29. doi: 10.3934/mine.2021043
    [3] Valentina Volpini, Lorenzo Bardella . Asymptotic analysis of compression sensing in ionic polymer metal composites: The role of interphase regions with variable properties. Mathematics in Engineering, 2021, 3(2): 1-31. doi: 10.3934/mine.2021014
    [4] Hyeonbae Kang, Shigeru Sakaguchi . A symmetry theorem in two-phase heat conductors. Mathematics in Engineering, 2023, 5(3): 1-7. doi: 10.3934/mine.2023061
    [5] Lucio Boccardo, Giuseppa Rita Cirmi . Regularizing effect in some Mingione’s double phase problems with very singular data. Mathematics in Engineering, 2023, 5(3): 1-15. doi: 10.3934/mine.2023069
    [6] Stefano Biagi, Serena Dipierro, Enrico Valdinoci, Eugenio Vecchi . A Hong-Krahn-Szegö inequality for mixed local and nonlocal operators. Mathematics in Engineering, 2023, 5(1): 1-25. doi: 10.3934/mine.2023014
    [7] Sandro Salsa, Francesco Tulone, Gianmaria Verzini . Existence of viscosity solutions to two-phase problems for fully nonlinear equations with distributed sources. Mathematics in Engineering, 2019, 1(1): 147-173. doi: 10.3934/Mine.2018.1.147
    [8] Guido De Philippis, Filip Rindler . Fine properties of functions of bounded deformation-an approach via linear PDEs. Mathematics in Engineering, 2020, 2(3): 386-422. doi: 10.3934/mine.2020018
    [9] Cristiana De Filippis . Optimal gradient estimates for multi-phase integrals. Mathematics in Engineering, 2022, 4(5): 1-36. doi: 10.3934/mine.2022043
    [10] Filippo Gazzola, Gianmarco Sperone . Remarks on radial symmetry and monotonicity for solutions of semilinear higher order elliptic equations. Mathematics in Engineering, 2022, 4(5): 1-24. doi: 10.3934/mine.2022040
  • Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis (TPP) is an uncommon symmetrical paralysis usually affecting proximal muscles, which occurs in the hyperthyroid state with associated hypokalemia. It is more prevalent in East Asian males and extremely rare in blacks. Data on TPP is scarce in Africa and no report has been made in Ghana. We report a case of a middle-aged Ghanaian man who had three episodes of paralysis in all four limbs occurring at night with the second and third episodes requiring hospital visit. He had no clinical signs of hyperthyroidism during his first hospital visit but had developed clinical and biochemical evidence of hyperthyroidism on the second visit with serum potassium levels of 1.9 mmol/l; and he was eventually diagnosed with TPP. His paralysis resolved with correction of the hypokalemia. It is important to evaluate patients presenting with paralysis comprehensively. Less common differential diagnosis such as TPP may also be considered in such patients to ensure early diagnosis and treatment which can prevent complications.



    Scope of the paper  In this paper, we aim at investigating several properties for a natural shape optimisation problem that arises in heterogeneous heat conduction: what is the optimal way to design the properties of a material in order to optimise its performance? This question has received a lot of attention from the mathematical community over the last decades [1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,22,30] and our goal in this paper is to offer some complementary qualitative results. Mathematically, these problems are often dubbed two-phase problems and write, in their most general form, as follows: considering that the piece consists of a basic material, with conductivity α>0, we try to find the best location ω for the inclusion of another material having conductivity β>α. The resulting diffusive part of the equation under consideration writes

    ((α+(βα)1ω))). (1.1)

    This diffusive part is supplemented with a source term, and can be considered in elliptic or parabolic models. We study some aspects of both cases in the present paper in the case of radial geometries. To state the generic type of question we are interested in, we write down the typical equation in the elliptic case: for a ball Ω, a source term fL2(Ω) (the influence of which is also discussed) and an inclusion ωΩ, let uω be the unique solution of

    {((α+(βα)1ω)uω)=finΩ,uω=0onΩ. (1.2)

    We consider a volume constraint, enforced by a parameter V1(0;Vol(Ω)), and we investigate the problem

    supωΩ,Vol(ω)=V1J(ω):=Ωj(uω),

    for a certain non-linearity j. More specifically, we consider the set

    M(Ω):={aL(Ω):a=α+(βα)1ωforsomemeasurableωΩ,Vol(ω)=V1}, (1.3)

    also called the set of bang-bang functions, as well as its natural compactification for the weak L topology,

    A(Ω):={aL(Ω),αaβ,Ωa=V0:=αVol(Ω)+(βα)V1}.

    For aA(Ω), we define ua,f as the solution of (1.2) with α+(βα)1ω replaced with a. We will be interested in two formulations: the initial (unrelaxed) one

    supaM(Ω)Ωj(ua)

    as well as the relaxed one

    supaA(Ω)Ωj(ua).

    It should be noted that we will also for some results have to optimise with respect to the source term f, but that the main difficulty usually lies in handling the term a. The two formulations of the problem have their interest, as it may be interesting to see when the two coincides. In other words, is a solution to the second problem a solution of the first one? Let us already underline several basic facts: first, as is customary in this type of optimisation problems (we detail the references later on and for the moment refer to [31]) we do not expect existence of solutions in all geometry, and the proper type of relaxation should rather be of the H-convergence type. Nevertheless, we offer some results about these two problems. Second, the type of problems we are considering are not energetic (in the sense that the criterion we aim at optimising can not a priori be derived from the natural energy associated with the PDE constraint). This leads to several difficulties, most notably in handling the adjoint of the optimisation problem and in the ensuing loss of natural convexity or concavity of the functional to optimise. Third, we distinguish between two types of results: the first type correspond to Talenti inequalities, where we rearrange both the coefficient a and the source term f. In the elliptic case, this follows from results of [6], and our contribution here is the application of these methods to the parabolic case. A second type of result, given in Theorem II, deals with a possible identification of the two formulations (i.e., if a solution to the relaxed problem exists then it is a solution of the unrelaxed one) in radial geometries, and we do not need for this second type of results to rearrange the source term f. This result is the main contribution of this article.

    Informal statement of the results  Our goal is thus threefold. For the sake of presentation we indicate to which case (i.e., optimisation with respect to a, f or both) each item corresponds. We write ua,f for the solution of the equation with diffusion a and source term f. We will need a comparison inequality provided in [6] and that we recall in Theorem A.

    1) Existence and partial characterisation in radial geometries (optimisation with respect to a and f) This matter of existence and/or characterisation of optimal a in the case of radial geometries is the topic of the two first results. The Talenti inequality from [6] leads to a comparison principle, but leaves open the question of the existence of optimal shapes: if Ω is a centred ball, is there a radially symmetric solution a to the optimisation problem in Ω of the form

    a=α+(βα)1ω

    for some measurable subset ωΩ? We prove in Theorem I that it is the case when the function j is convex and we also allow ourselves to rearrange the source term f. We use the ideas contained in [15] to do so and prove this theorem for the sake of completeness; we highlight that the main contribution here is to prove that the methods of [15] work for non-energetic functionals.

    2) Weak bang-bang property under monotonicity assumption in radial geometries (optimisation with respect to a) The second result of the "elliptic problem" part, is the main result of this paper, Theorem II. In it, we give a weak bang-bang property that does not require convexity assumptions on the function j (and so no clear convexity on J). Namely, we prove that if, in a centred ball Ω, a solution a to the optimisation problem exists, and if j is increasing, then this solution has to be of bang-bang type. It is notable that, in this theorem, we do not require the term f to be rearranged as well and that we can handle non-energetic problem. This is proved by introducing, for two-phase problems, an oscillatory method reminiscent of the ideas of [25].

    3) Comparison results for parabolic models (optimisation with respect to time-dependent a and f) We provide, in Theorem III, a parabolic Talenti inequality. The proof is an adaptation of a result of [29], combined with the methods of [6].

    Plan of the paper  This paper is organised as follows: in Section 1.2 we present the models, the optimisation problems and give some elements about the Schwarz rearrangement. In Section 1.3 we state our main results. Section 1.4 contains the bibliographical references. The rest of the paper is devoted to the proofs of the main results. Finally, in the Conclusion, we state several open problems that we deem interesting.

    Henceforth, Ω is a centred ball in IRd, and V0(0;Vol(Ω)) is a fixed parameter that serves as a volume constraint. As explained in the first paragraph, we are interested in both elliptic and parabolic models. This leads us to define two admissible classes: the first one, used for elliptic problems, is

    A(Ω):={aL(Ω):αaβa.e.inΩ,Ωa=V0} (1.4)

    while the second, defined for a certain time horizon T>0, is

    A(Ω;T):={aL((0;T)×Ω):αaβa.e.in(0;T)×Ω,fora.e.t(0;T),Ωa(t,)=V0} (1.5)

    The set of admissible sources, on which we also place a volume constraint modelled via a constant F0(0;Vol(Ω)), is

    F(Ω):={fL(Ω):0f1a.e.inΩ,Ωf=F0}. (1.6)

    Similarly, we define, in the parabolic case,

    F(Ω;T):={fL((0;T)×Ω):0f1a.e.in(0;T)×Ω,fora.e.t(0;T)Ωf(t,)=F0}. (1.7)

    Main equation in the elliptic case  In the elliptic case, the main equation reads as follows: for any aA(Ω) and any fF(Ω), uell,a,f is the unique solution of

    {(auell,a,f)=finΩ,uell,a,f=0inΩ. (1.8)

    The solution uell,a,f is the unique minimiser in W1,20(Ω) of the energy functional

    Ea,f:W1,20(Ω)u12Ωa|u|2Ωfu. (1.9)

    Remark 1. Although for the classes A(Ω) and A(Ω;T) the lower bounds 0<αa ensure coercivity of the associated energy, it may be asked whether the non-negativity constraint on the sources can be relaxed. It may be difficult, as we need in our proofs the following crucial fact: when Ω is the ball, when f and a are radially symmetric functions of A(Ω) and F(Ω) respectively, the solution ua,f is radially non-increasing in Ω. This may not be the case, for instance when f<0 close to the center of the ball. Thus we choose simplicity and assume f0 almost everywhere.

    In the elliptic case, the goal is to solve the following problem: let jC1(IR) be a given non-linearity, then the problem is

    supaA(Ω),fF(Ω){Jell(a,f):=Ωj(uell,a,f)}Pell,j

    In [6], a comparison result that we will use later on is proved; we recall it in Theorem A. This comparison result states roughly speaking, that if j is increasing, there exist two radially symmetric functions ˜a and f such that Jell(a,f)Jell(˜a,f), with f still admissible; ˜a, however, may violate some constraints. Here, our main contribution is Theorem I, in which we prove it is possible to choose a radially symmetric ˜a that satisfies the constraints if we assume that j is convex and C2. This is done by adapting the methods of [15].

    Second, in Theorem II, we are interested in the following alternative formulation: fF(Ω) being fixed, solve

    supaA(Ω){Jell(a):=Ωj(uell,a,f)}.Pell,j,f

    We prove, using an oscillatory technique that, if a solution a exists and if j is increasing, then we must have aM(Ω). We underline that this result does not require rearranging f.

    Main equation in the parabolic case  In the parabolic case, the main equation reads as follows: for any aA(Ω;T), any fF(Ω;T), uparab,a,f is the unique solution of

    {uparab,a,ft(auparab,a,f)=fin(0;T)×Ω,uparab,a,f=0onΩ,uparab,a,f(0,)=0inΩ. (1.10)

    The parabolic optimisation problem assumes the following form: for two given non-linearities j1 and j2 in C1(IR) we consider the optimisation problem

    supaA(Ω;T),fF(Ω;T){Jparab(a,f):=(0;T)×Ωj1(uparab,a,f)+Ωj2(uparab,a,f(T))}.Pparab,j1,j2

    The main result is Theorem III, in which a parabolic isoperimetric inequality (with respect to the coefficient a) is obtained: namely, it is better to have radially symmetric a and f.

    In this section we recall the key points about the Schwarz rearrangement, which will be used constantly throughout this paper, and about the rearrangement of Alvino and Trombetti [6,7] that is crucial in dealing with two-phase isoperimetric problems.

    Schwarz rearrangement: definitions, properties and order relations  We refer to section 1.4 for further references, for instance for parabolic isoperimetric inequalities and for the time being we recall the basic definitions of the Schwarz rearrangement. We refer to [19,20,23] for a thorough introduction.

    Definition 2 (Schwarz rearrangement of sets). For a given bounded connected open set Ω0, the Schwarz rearrangement Ω0 of Ω0 is the unique centred ball BΩ0=B(0;RΩ0) such that

    Vol(BΩ0)=Vol(Ω0). (1.11)

    For rearrangements of functions, we use the distribution function: for any p[1;+), for any function uLp(Ω), u0, its distribution function is

    μu:IR+tVol({u>t}). (1.12)

    Definition 3 (Schwarz rearrangement of a function). For any function uLp(Ω0),u0, its Schwarz rearrangement is the unique radially symmetric function uLp(Ω0) having the same distribution function as u. u# stands for the one-dimensional function such that u=u#(cd||d) where cd:=Vol(B(0;1)).

    As a consequence of the equimeasurability of the function and of its rearrangement* there holds:

    * Two functions are called equimeasurable if they have the same distribution functions.

    p[1;+),uLp(Ω0),u0,Ωup=Ω0(u)p. (1.13)

    Two results are particularly important in the study of the Schwarz rearrangement:

    Hardy-Littlewood inequality: for any two non-negative functions f,gL2(Ω),

    Ω0fgΩ0fg. (1.14)

    PólyaSzegö inequality: for any p[1;+), for any uW1,p0(Ω),u0,

    uW1,p0(Ω0)andΩ0|u|pΩ0|u|p. (1.15)

    Finally, we will rely on an ordering of the set of functions.

    Definition 4. Let RΩ0>0 be the radius of the ball Ω0. For any two non-negative functions f,gL1(Ω0) we write

    fg

    if

    r[0;RΩ0],B(0;r)fB(0;r)g. (1.16)

    This ordering [17] provides the natural framework for comparison theorems in elliptic and parabolic equations [3,4,28,29,36,37,38]. The following property is proved in [4,Proposition 2]: for any non-decreasing convex function F such that F(0)=0, for any two non-negative functions f,gL1(Ω),

    fgF(f)F(g). (1.17)

    We now pass to the definition of rearrangement sets:

    Definition 5 (Rearrangement sets). For any non-negative function fL1(Ω0) we define

    CΩ0(f):={φL1(Ω0),φ=f} (1.18)

    and

    KΩ0(f):={φL1(Ω0),φ0a.e.,φf,Ω0φ=Ω0f}. (1.19)

    The following result can be found in [8,27,34]: for any non-negative fL1(Ω), KΩ(f) is a weakly compact, convex set; its extreme points are the elements of CΩ(f).

    The Alvino-Trombetti rearrangement: definition and property  The Alvino-Trombetti rearrangement is very useful when handling two-phase problems, and was introduced in [6,7] to establish some comparison principles for some elliptic equations with a diffusion matrix. The goal is the following: let uW1,20(Ω)L(Ω) be a non-negative function and let aA(Ω). We want to prove that there exists ˜a that is radially symmetric, such that ˜aId is uniformly elliptic and such that

    Ωa|u|2Ω˜a|u|2. (1.20)

    One defines ˜a as the unique radially symmetric function such that

    Fora.e.t(0; (1.21)

    It can be checked [15] that

    Remark 6. In particular, if all the level-sets of have Lebesgue measure zero and the gradient of does not vanish on these level-sets, this definition rewrites as

    (1.22)

    This fact follows from the co-area formula, which states in particular that

    [7,Lemma 1.2] or [15,Proposition 4.9] assert that: for any , for any , being defined by (1.21), there holds

    (1.23)

    Talenti inequalities for the relaxed problem  Let us start by recalling an application of the Alvino-Trombetti rearrangement to Talenti-like inequalities. Talenti inequalities originated in the seminal [36] and have, since then, been widely studied [2,3,4,8,9,28,29,37,38]. Roughly speaking, they amount to comparing, using the relation , the solution of an elliptic problem with the solution of a "symmetrised" elliptic equation. This first result [6] is the stepping stone to our main theorem and holds for the relaxed version of the problem:

    Theorem A ([6], Comparison results, optimisation w.r.t. and ). Let be a centred ball. For any and any , being defined by (1.21), there holds

    (1.24)

    As a consequence, for any increasing function ,

    Thus, it seems quite interesting to investigate whether the optimisation problem () has a radial solution. This would seem natural given the equation above. However, the Alvino-Trombetti rearrangement only provides us with a rearranged coefficient such that the inverse . This last set is however different from . The same problem arises when considering bang-bang functions . We nonetheless obtain existence properties for the unrelaxed problem.

    Theorem I (Existence and bang-bang property in radial geometry for convex integrand, optimisation w.r.t. and ). Assume is a convex function. Let . Let . The optimisation problem

    has a solution .

    The proof of this theorem is inspired by the proof of existence of optimal profiles for eigenvalue problems in [15].

    Finally, the last result for elliptic problems deals with a bang-bang property when optimising only with respect to : is it true that, if we just assume that is increasing, if a solution of () exists, then it is bang-bang? We can only partially answer this question, in the next theorem. It is the main result of our paper.

    Theorem II (Weak bang-bang property for increasing cost functions, optimisation w.r.t radially symmetric ). Assume is an increasing function such that on . Let . Let and . Then, if the optimisation problem

    has a solution , there holds

    The proof of this theorem is based on the development of an oscillatory method recently introduced in [25].

    In this second part, we state our main result devoted to the parabolic optimisation problem (). The proof of the parabolic isoperimetric inequality is done by adapting the proofs of Theorem A and of [29,Theorem 2.1]. For the sake of clarity, for a function of two variables , the notation stands for the Schwarz rearrangement of with respect to the space variable .

    Theorem III (Comparison results, optimisation w.r.t. and ). Let .Let and . Then there exists a radially symmetric function defined on such that almost everywhere and such that, for almost every and every there holds

    In particular, if and are convex increasing functions there holds

    Let us now offer some comments about this result, and about the method of proof.

    Remark 7 (Comments on Theorem III). 1) The first thing that has to be noted is that, exactly as in the elliptic case, although the new weight satisfies the correct upper and lower bounds , there is a priori no guarantee that . Some other arguments would then be needed in order to conclude as to the integral constraint. It is not clear at this stage how one may go about this question.

    2) The second remark has to do with the method of proof that is employed. The two main available approaches in the context of parabolic equations are, on the one hand, dealing with the parabolic problem directly, as is done in [29] and as we do here, and on the other hand by time-discretisation of the evolution problem, as in [3]. We believe the second of these approaches may prove more delicate. To see why, let us recall the main steps of the proof of [3]: the authors, which in particular try to prove a comparison result for rearrangement of the source in the parabolic equation

    approximate this equation by the discretisation with time step

    where On each of these discretised problem, they use an elliptic Talenti inequality, yielding a comparison with the solution of the same system with as a right-hand side. This Schwarz symmetrisation operation is independent of the time-step (in the sense that the definition of does not depend on the time step ). In our case however, since the Alvino-Trombetti rearrangement depends on the function evaluated at the time , this would translate, at the discretised level, as a rearrangement that would depend on both indexes and . This may lead to potential difficulties in passing to the limit.

    Let us underline that this type of parabolic comparison results can be very useful when dealing with parabolic eigenvalue optimisation problems, as is done for instance in [32,Theorem 3.9].

    In this paper, we offer contributions that may be viewed from several point of views, each of which stemming from very rich domains in mathematical analysis.

    Two-phase spectral optimisation problems  Two-phase optimisation problems have a rich history, and are deeply linked to homogenisation phenomenas. We refer, for instance, to [1,31] for a presentation of this rich theory, and we underline that one of the striking features of these problems is that there is often a lack of existence results. These results are typically obtained by proving that should an optimiser exist, then an overdetermined problem that can only solved in radial geometries should have a solution. This is done by using Serrin type theorems [35], and this phenomenon occurs in dimension . A typical and famous example of such problems is the optimisation of the first Dirichlet eigenvalue of the operator under the constraint that . To the best of our knowledge, the proof of non-existence of an optimal when is not a ball was only recently completed in a series of papers by Casado-Diaz [10,11,12]. However, these negative results in the case of non-radial geometries do not allow to conclude as for the existence and/or characterisation of optimisers in radially symmetric domains. In this case, the same spectral optimisation problem being under consideration, the first proof of existence can be found in [15], using the Alvino-Trombetti rearrangement. We borrow from their ideas in the proof of Theorem I (and we highlight the fact that we do not consider here energetic problems). To underline the complexity of this spectral optimisation problem, let us also mention [22], in which it is shown that, in the ball, the qualitative features of the optimiser strongly depend on the volume constraint. We also refer to [13,26] for the study of the spectral optimisation of operators with respect to a weight that appears both in the principal symbol and as a potential.

    Elliptic and parabolic Talenti inequalities  Talenti inequalities, which originate in the seminal [36] have been the subject of an intense research activity. For parabolic equations, the study of such inequalities started, as far as we are aware, in the works of Bandle [9], Vazquez [38] and were later deeply analysed by Alvino, Trombetti and Lions [2,3] on the one hand, and by Mossino and Rakotoson on the other [29]. We would like to mention that we have recently obtained a quantitative parabolic isoperimetric inequality for the source term in [24]. Alvino, Nitsch and Trombetti have recently proved an elliptic Talenti inequality under Robin boundary conditions, using a very fine analysis of the Robin problem [5]. This Robin Talenti inequality was then used in, for instance, [21,33].

    Proof of Theorem I. For the first part of the theorem, we consider the case where is a fixed constant. We work with functions . In other words, there exists measurable such that

    and we aim at solving

    under the assumption that is convex on .

    Let us first note that for any we have where satisfies . As a consequence, for any ,

    where is the rearrangement class defined in definition 5. For the sake of notational convenience, we define

    By Theorem A, for any there exists a radially symmetric such that

    where is simply the Schwarz rearrangement of . By convexity of the functional with respect to , is a bang-bang function. We henceforth consider it fixed and focus on optimisation with respect to .

    The problem with this reformulation is that there is a priori no guarantee that , and it is in general false. To overcome this difficulty, we now focus on a slightly simplified version of our problem:

    (2.1)

    Another refomulation, a priori encompassing a larger class, is

    (2.2)

    We now proceed in several steps, following the ideas of [15]:

    Existence of solutions to (2.2): we first prove, in lemma 1, that there exists a solution to (2.2). This is done via the direct method in the calculus of variations.

    The bang-bang property for : we then prove, in Lemma 9, that any solution of (2.2) is a bang-bang function. In other words, there exists a measurable subset such that

    This is done via a convexity argument. As a consequence, , hence concluding the proof.

    Existence of solutions to (2.2)   The main result of this paragraph is the following lemma:

    Lemma 8. There exists a solution of the variational problem (2.2).

    Proof of Lemma 8. We first note the following fact: if a sequence of radially symmetric functions weakly converges in to (which is an element of by the closedness of for the weak convergence, see [27]) then, up to a subsequence,

    Obtaining this result boils down to proving that, for any sequence of radially symmetric functions weakly converges in to there holds

    Indeed, it then simply suffices to use the dominated convergence theorem to obtain the required result. Let us then prove that for any sequence of radially symmetric functions weakly converging in to ,

    (2.3)

    However, since we are working with radially symmetric functions, this follows from explicit integration in radial coordinates of

    which gives, for any (and with a slight abuse of notation),

    Thus, from the Rellich-Kondrachov embedding

    It suffices to extract a subsequence that is converging almost everywhere.

    We turn back to the proof of the lemma: let be a maximising sequence for (2.2). Since the set is weakly compact, and since for any is radially symmetric, there exists a radially symmetric such that, up to a subsequence,

    Hence, up to a subsequence,

    so that is a solution of (2.2).

    The bang-bang property for    We now present the key point of the proof of Theorem I, the bang-bang property.

    Lemma 9. Any solution of (2.2) is of bang-bang type: there exists such that

    Proof of Lemma 9. We argue by contradiction and assume that there exists a solution of (2.2) that is not of bang-bang type. We will reach a conclusion using a second order information on the functional , namely, by using the first and second order Gâteaux-derivative of the functional . Let us first observe that it is standard [18] to see that the map is Gâteaux-differentiable. Furthermore, for a given and an admissible perturbation at (i.e., such that for small enough) the first order Gâteau-derivative of in the direction is the unique solution of

    (2.4)

    and the first Gâteaux-derivative of at in the direction is given by

    (2.5)

    This leads to introducing the adjoint state as the unique solution of

    (2.6)

    Remark 10. It should be noted that by explicit integration of the equation on in radial coordinate, ; as a consequence, is an function, so that is well-defined.

    Multiplying, on the one hand (2.4) by , on the other hand (2.6) by , and integrating by parts gives

    (2.7)

    We now compute the second order derivative of the criterion in a similar manner: the second order Gâteaux derivative of at in the direction is zero. In other words, denoting by this second order derivative, we have

    Indeed, this follows from the explicit computation of as

    Thus, it appears that is linear. As a consequence we have that the second order Gâteaux derivative of at in the direction , henceforth abbreviated as , is given by

    (2.8)

    Hence, if is convex, so is . Thus any solution of (2.2) is an extreme point of . In other words

    It follows that

    Conclusion of the proof   As noted at the beginning of the proof, for any there exists such that and such that . Since

    it follows that

    From proposition 2 is a bang-bang function. As a consequence, is an element of . Thus

    Thus is a solution of the initial optimisation problem.

    The proof of the theorem is now complete.

    Proof of Theorem II. Throughout this proof we assume that we are given a radially symmetric solution of the optimisation problem

    and we want to prove that . To reach the desired conclusion we argue by contradiction and we assume that . We emphasise once again that this proof does not require rearranging the source term . Since is assumed to be fixed, we write for and for .

    Let us single out the following result, that follows from direct integration in radial coordinates of (1.10):

    Lemma 11. For any radially symmetric and , , is radial and we furthermore have, with a slight abuse of notation, for a.e. ,

    (3.1)

    In particular, is a non-positive function and, for any , . It is strictly decreasing if in a neighbourhood of 0.

    We now compute the Gateaux derivatives of both the maps and of (we note that the fact that both maps are Gateaux differentiable follow from standard arguments). We note that, to compute them, it is not necessary to assume that the coefficients and are radiallly symmetric.

    The first-order Gateaux derivative of at in an admissible direction (i.e., such that for small enough), denoted by , is the unique solution to

    (3.2)

    The Gateaux derivative of at in the direction is given by

    (3.3)

    This leads to introducing the adjoint state as the unique solution to

    (3.4)

    Multiplying (3.4) by and (3.2) by and integrating by parts gives

    (3.5)

    In the same way, the second order Gateaux derivative of at in the direction , denoted by , is the unique solution to

    (3.6)

    and the second order Gateaux derivative of at in the direction is given by

    (3.7)

    However, multiplying (3.6) by , integrating by parts and using the weak formulation of (3.4) yields

    (3.8)

    Plugging (3.8) in (3.7) gives

    (3.9)

    We now use the radial symmetry assumption: since and are radially symmetric, and since , (3.2) implies, in radial coordinates, as

    (3.10)

    Furthermore, we have the following lemma:

    Lemma 12. If on then is a radially symmetric decreasing function:

    Proof of Lemma 12. The fact that is decreasing simply follows from, first, the strong maximum principle which implies that

    and, second, from explicit integration of the equation on in radial coordinates, which gives

    The radiality of implies

    As a consequence of (3.10), we have, for a constant

    Let us first define

    We observe that in and that, as ,

    (3.11)

    If in a neighbourhood of then we can extend by in 0. If on the other hand in a neighbourhood of 0, then when . In any case, there exists a constant such that

    We define the function

    and we thus have

    Finally, as and there exists a constant such that

    (3.12)

    We end up with the following estimate on :

    (3.13)
    (3.14)

    Remark 13. It should be noted that, at this level, we recover the convexity of the functional if we assume that . Indeed, in that case we can take .

    Let us now turn back to the core of the proof: we have a maximiser . Let

    Since ,

    Furthermore, for any , extended by outside of and such that , we have (since both and are admissible perturbations at )

    (3.15)

    To reach a contradiction, it suffices to build such that

    (3.16)

    Actually, by approximation it suffices to build such that (3.16) holds. For the sake of notational simplicity, for any , we identify with . To obtain the existence of such a perturbation we single out the estimate

    (3.17)

    We introduce the sequence of eigenvalues of the operator . We pick a non-decreasing of the eigenvalue sequence:

    The eigenequations are given by

    (3.18)

    For any admissible perturbation at , we decompose in this basis as

    (3.19)

    where the coefficients are determined by equation (3.2). If we assume that, for an integer large enough, we have

    (3.20)

    then we obtain, by expanding the right hand-side of (3.17),

    (3.21)

    As a consequence it remains to construct a perturbation such that

    (3.22)

    We need however to be careful, since merely lies in . To overcome this difficulty, we define, for any , the coefficient

    (3.23)

    Since , each of this quantities is well-defined. Furthermore, setting, for any ,

    (3.24)

    we have

    (3.25)

    Since we have, in , the decomposition

    (3.26)

    As a consequence, to ensure a decomposition of the form (3.19) it suffices to find, for large enough, an such that

    is radially symmetric,

    ● For any , ,

    ● There holds .

    We define as the space of radially symmetric functions in . Let us first note that for any the linear maps are continuous on . This continuity property is a consequence of the radial symmetry assumption on the coefficients, which from Lemma 11 implies that . Indeed, we can then simply write

    whence the continuity.

    Defining as

    which is obviously continuous on we are hence looking for such that

    (3.27)

    However, is an infinite dimensional Hilbert space, and are closed subspaces of finite co-dimension, hence has finite co-dimension. In particular it is non empty, so there exists such that (3.27) holds. The conclusion follows.

    Proof of Theorem III. For the proof of the parabolic Talenti inequalities we follow the main ideas of [29,Theorem 2.1] and of [7]. Since the proof is very similar we mostly present the main steps. To alleviate notations, we simply write for . For a fixed , we define, for almost every , as the Alvino-Trombetti rearrangement of with respect to . In other words, for almost every and almost every ,

    From [7,Proof of Lemma 1.2] we have, with ,

    Let is the one-dimensional counterpart of (i.e., ). Then, as in [7], there holds, almost everywhere,

    On the other hand the same arguments as in [3,Proof of Theorem 1] (see also [36]) show that, almost everywhere

    We can hence conclude that

    (4.1)

    We now rewrite

    Introducing as in [29] the function defined as

    we hence obtain

    (4.2)

    By the Hardy-Littlewood inequality we have

    (4.3)

    Combining these estimates we are left with

    (4.4)

    which, after integration, gives

    (4.5)

    We denote by the function obtained by replacing by in the definition of . Since all the previous inequalities become equalities in this case it follows that the function satisfies

    (4.6)

    From the maximum principle, we have , so that the conclusion follows. If and are convex non-decreasing functions, the second conclusion of the theorem follows from [4,Proposition 2].

    In this paper, we have undertaken the study of certain non-energetic two-phase optimisation problems. Of course, our results are partial, and we now present some open problems that we think are worth investigating.

    Open problem I: rearrangements for the time-independent case   The first crucial question has to do with the parabolic problem. Indeed, since the Alvino-Trombetti rearrangement we use is defined differently for every time , the question of time-independent remains completely open, and we believe it may be fruitful to investigate in the future.

    Open problem II: possible relaxations of the problem, bang-bang property for the parabolic optimisation problem   The second problem has to do with the conclusion of Theorem I. A more satisfying conclusion that we could not reach would have been a weak bang-bang property, namely that, a profile being given, there exists that improves the criterion. Usually, this type of property is obtained using the convexity or concavity of the functional. However, here, what we proved in Theorem II was that the second-order derivative of the functional is positive on an infinite dimensional subspace of the space of admissible perturbations. It is unclear whether this weaker information may be sufficient.

    Open problem III: Robin boundary conditions   Finally, let us note that, following the recent progresses in the study of Robin Talenti inequalities [5], it may be very interesting to try and understand which type of rearrangement of the weight may be suitable to obtain Talenti inequalities for two-phases problems under Robin boundary conditions.

    I. Mazari was partially supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) through the grant I4052-N32. This work was also partially funded by the French ANR Project ANR-18-CE40-0013 - SHAPO on Shape Optimization and by the Project "Analysis and simulation of optimal shapes - Application to lifesciences" of the Paris City Hall. The author would like to warmly thank the referee for his or her suggestions.

    The author declares no conflict of interest.



    Ethical approval



    Patient gave written informed consent for publication of this case report. The case report including the electrocardiogram and echocardiogram images were de-identified to protect patient's privacy and maintain confidentiality.

    Conflict of interest



    All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.

    [1] Kung AWC (2006) Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis: A diagnostic challenge. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 91: 2490-2495. https://doi.org/10.1210/JC.2006-0356
    [2] Taylor PN, Albrecht D, Scholz A, et al. (2018) Global epidemiology of hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism. Nat Rev Endocrinol 14: 301-316. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrendo.2018.18
    [3] Sarfo-Kantanka O, Sarfo FS, Ansah EO, et al. (2017) Spectrum of endocrine disorders in central Ghana. Int J Endocrinol 2017: 5470731. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5470731
    [4] Falhammar H, Thorén M, Calissendorff J (2013) Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis: clinical and molecular aspects. Endocrine 43: 274-284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12020-012-9777-x
    [5] Kelley DE, Gharib H, Kennedy FP, et al. (1989) Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis. Report of 10 cases and review of electromyographic findings. Arch Intern Med 149: 2597-2600. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.149.11.2597
    [6] McFadzean AJ, Yeung R (1967) Periodic paralysis complicating thyrotoxicosis in Chinese. Br Med J 1: 451-455. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.1.5538.451
    [7] Okinaka S, Shizume K, Iino S, et al. (1957) The association of periodic paralysis and hyperthyroidism in Japan. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 17: 1454-1459. https://doi.org/10.1210/jcem-17-12-1454
    [8] Tessier JJ, Neu SK, Horning KK (2010) Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis (TPP) in a 28-year-old Sudanese man started on prednisone. J Am Board Fam Med 23: 551-554. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2010.04.090220
    [9] Manoukian MA, Foote JA, Crapo LM (1999) Clinical and metabolic features of thyrotoxic periodic paralysis in 24 episodes. Arch Intern Med 159: 601-606. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.159.6.601
    [10] Siddamreddy S, Dandu VH (2022) Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis. StatPearls Publishing. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK560670/
    [11] Glass J, Osipoff J (2020) Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis presenting in an African-American teenage male: case report. Int J Pediatr Endocrinol 2020: 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13633-020-00077-3
    [12] Chatot-Henry C, Smadja D, Longhi R, et al. (2000) Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis. Two news cases in black race patients. Rev Med Interne 21: 632-634. (Article in French) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0248-8663(00)80010-7
    [13] Iheonunekwu NC, Ibrahim TM, Davies D, et al. (2004) Thyrotoxic hypokalaemic paralysis in a pregnant Afro-Carribean woman: A case report and review of the literature. West Indian Med J 53: 47-49.
    [14] Ngonyani M, Manji H (2021) Thyrotoxicosis: an unusual cause of periodic paralysis (a case report from Tanzania). PAMJ Clin Med 7. https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj-cm.2021.7.24.31614
    [15] Sow M, Diagne N, Djiba B, et al. (2020) Thyrotoxic hypokalemic periodic paralysis in two African black women. Pan Afr Med J 37: 207. (Article in French) https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2020.37.207.24900
    [16] Schoumaker V, Bovy P (2013) Clinical case of the month. Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis. Report of a case in a Somalian male. Rev Med Liege 68: 402-407. (Article in French)
    [17] Fontaine B (2008) Periodic paralysis. Adv Genet 63: 3-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2660(08)01001-8
    [18] Venance SL, Cannon SC, Fialho D, et al. (2006) The primary periodic paralyses: diagnosis, pathogenesis and treatment. Brain 129: 8-17. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awh639
    [19] Ptáček LJ, Tawil R, Griggs RC, et al. (1994) Dihydropyridine receptor mutations cause hypokalemic periodic paralysis. Cell 77: 863-868. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(94)90135-x
    [20] Fouad G, Dalakas M, Servidei S, et al. (1997) Genotype-phenotype correlations of DHP receptor α1-subunit gene mutations causing hypokalemic periodic paralysis. Neuromuscul Disord 7: 33-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0960-8966(96)00401-4
    [21] Jurkat-rott K, Lehmann-horn F, Elbaz A, et al. (1994) A calcium channel mutation causing hypokalemic periodic paralysis. Hum Mol Genet 3: 1415-1419. https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/3.8.1415
    [22] Sternberg D, Maisonobe T, Jurkat-Rott K, et al. (2001) Hypokalaemic periodic paralysis type 2 caused by mutations at codon 672 in the muscle sodium channel gene SCN4A. Brain 124: 1091-1099. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/124.6.1091
    [23] Bulman DE, Scoggan KA, Van Oene MD, et al. (1999) A novel sodium channel mutation in a family with hypokalemic periodic paralysis. Neurology 53: 1932-1936. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.53.9.1932
    [24] Jurkat-Rott K, Mitrovic N, Hang C, et al. (2000) Voltage-sensor sodium channel mutations cause hypokalemic periodic paralysis type 2 by enhanced inactivation and reduced current. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97: 9549-9554. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.97.17.9549
    [25] Zhao SX, Liu W, Liang J, et al. (2019) Assessment of molecular subtypes in thyrotoxic periodic paralysis and Graves disease among Chinese Han adults: A population-based genome-wide association study. JAMA Netw open 2: e193348. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.3348
    [26] Li GHY, Cheung CL, Zhao SX, et al. (2020) Genome-wide meta-analysis reveals novel susceptibility loci for thyrotoxic periodic paralysis. Eur J Endocrinol 183: 607-617. https://doi.org/10.1530/EJE-20-0523
    [27] Park S, Kim TY, Sim S, et al. (2017) Association of KCNJ2 genetic variants with susceptibility to thyrotoxic periodic paralysis in patients with Graves' disease. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 125: 75-78. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-119527
    [28] Cheung CL, Lau KS, Ho AYY, et al. (2012) Genome-wide association study identifies a susceptibility locus for thyrotoxic periodic paralysis at 17q24.3. Nat Genet 44: 1026-1029. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2367
    [29] Hsu YJ, Lin YF, Chau T, et al. (2003) Electrocardiographic manifestations in patients with thyrotoxic periodic paralysis. Am J Med Sci 326: 128-132. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000441-200309000-00004
    [30] Fisher J (1982) Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis with ventricular fibrillation. Arch Intern Med 142: 1362-1364. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1982.00340200130024
    [31] Pompeo A, Nepa A, Maddestra M, et al. (2007) Thyrotoxic hypokalemic periodic paralysis: An overlooked pathology in western countries. Eur J Intern Med 18: 380-390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2007.03.003
    [32] Talbott JH (1941) Periodic paralysis. Medicine 20: 85-143.
    [33] Schmidt ST, Ditting T, Deutsch B, et al. (2015) Circadian rhythm and day to day variability of serum potassium concentration: a pilot study. J Nephrol 28: 165-172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40620-014-0115-7
    [34] Gumz ML, Rabinowitz L (2013) Role of circadian rhythms in potassium homeostasis. Semin Nephrol 33: 229-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semnephrol.2013.04.003
    [35] Edelman J, Stewart-Wynne EG (1981) Respiratory and bulbar paralysis with relapsing hyperthyroidism. Br Med J 283: 275-276. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.283.6286.275-a
    [36] Lam L, Nair RJ, Tingle L (2006) Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis. Proc 19: 126-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2006.11928143
    [37] Tella SH, Kommalapati A (2015) Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis: An underdiagnosed and under-recognized condition. Cureus 7: e342. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.342
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Idriss Mazari, A note on the rearrangement of functions in time and on the parabolic Talenti inequality, 2022, 68, 0430-3202, 137, 10.1007/s11565-022-00392-y
    2. Dario Mazzoleni, Benedetta Pellacci, Calculus of variations and nonlinear analysis: advances and applications, 2023, 5, 2640-3501, 1, 10.3934/mine.2023059
    3. Idriss Mazari-Fouquer, Optimising the carrying capacity in logistic diffusive models: Some qualitative results, 2024, 393, 00220396, 238, 10.1016/j.jde.2024.02.007
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(2070) PDF downloads(116) Cited by(1)

Figures and Tables

Figures(2)  /  Tables(1)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog