A new fair marker algorithm for DiffServ networks

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has proposed many new technologies to cover the new real time applications which have become very important in today's Internet demands. One such technology is Differentiated Services (DiffServ). DiffServ routers provide Per Hop Behaviors (PHBs) to aggregate traffic for different level of services. There is an unfairness problem that occur in a DiffServ networks. In this paper an improved version of the time sliding window three color marker is proposed and analyzed. The proposed algorithm is based on the adaptability concept of changing the constant value in the previous version of the algorithm (ItswTCM), in other words, changing the limit for the constant value without affecting the simplicity of the algorithm. The paper design and implement the algorithm with extensive simulations using NS-2 simulator to compare the proposed algorithm with previous algorithms. Results show that our new marker performs better than previous algorithms such as srTCM, trTCM, tswWTCM and ItswTCM in terms of fairness and number of yellow packets injected to the network in proportion to the committed rate

Predicting Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes During the Late First Trimester and Early Second Trimester Using the Uterine Artery Doppler

Background: The high resistance occurring in vessels of placenta pathologically can be assessed by impaired blood flow of uterine arteries of pregnant women. It has been proven that measuring of blood flow in the uterine artery in 1st trimester is useful. Results from the second trimester, on the other hand, have proven to be more predictable. Objective: The aim of the work was to predict fetal and maternal morbidity and mortality as a result of low placental blood flow. Subjects and Methods: This prospective study included a total of 127 pregnant women, attending for routine first trimester U/S scan at Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Zagazig University Hospitals. This study was conducted between April 2020 till December 2020. Results: The mean Doppler Uterine artery resistance index (RI) was 0.587±0.22 ranged from 0.31 to 1.21 and for pulsatility index (PI) 1.56±0.29 ranged from 0.39 to 2.45. The incidence rate of Fetal maternal adverse outcome was 22.8%, distributed as 11.8% Maternal adverse outcome (most prevailing preeclampsia) and 15.7% Fetal adverse outcome (IUGR and preterm). There was statistically significant higher value of Doppler Uterine artery RI and Doppler Uterine artery PI of Adverse outcome compared to Favorable outcome women. Uterine artery PI was good marker to discriminate maternal fetal adverse outcome at late first to second trimester. While uterine artery RI was fair marker to discriminate maternal fetal adverse outcome at late first to second trimester. Conclusions: It could be concluded that uterine artery PI was good marker while uterine artery RI was fair marker to discriminate maternal fetal adverse outcome at late first to second trimester

Ethics of Genetic and Biomarker Test Disclosures in Neurodegenerative Disease Prevention Trials

OBJECTIVE: Prevention trials for neurodegenerative diseases use genetic or other risk marker tests to select participants but there is concern that this could involve coercive disclosure of unwanted information. This has led some trials to use blinded enrollment (participants are tested but not told of their risk marker status). We examined the ethics of blinded vs transparent enrollment using well-established criteria for assessing the ethics of clinical research. METHODS: Normative analysis applying 4 key ethical criteria-favorable risk-benefit ratio, informed consent, fair subject selection, and scientific validity-to blinded vs transparent enrollment, using current evidence and state of Alzheimer disease (AD) and other prevention trials. RESULTS: Current evidence on the psychosocial impact of risk marker disclosure and considerations of scientific benefit do not support an obligation to use blinded enrollment in prevention trials. Nor does transparent enrollment coerce or involve undue influence of potential participants. Transparent enrollment does not unfairly exploit vulnerable participants or limit generalizability of scientific findings of prevention trials. However, if the preferences of a community of potential participants would affect the rigor or feasibility of a prevention trial using transparent enrollment, then investigators are required by considerations of scientific validity to use blinded enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: Considerations of risks and benefits, informed consent, and fair subject selection do not require the use of blinded enrollment for AD prevention trials. Blinded enrollment in AD prevention trials may sometimes be necessary because of the need for scientific validity, not because it prevents coercion or undue influence

Chapter Six. Conclusions and future implications

6.1 Summary of Findings 6.2 Future Biomarker and Diagnostics Researchhttps://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/tropicalenteropathybook/1007/thumbnail.jp