19 research outputs found

    GENERATIVE MODELING, VIRTUAL REALITY AND HBIM INTERACTION: IMMERSIVE ENVIRONMENT FOR BUILT HERITAGE: CASE STUDY OF SHAIKH ISA BIN ALI HOUSE, BAHRAIN

    Get PDF
    The innovation in Digital Cultural Heritage (DCH) shows an emergence of innovative methods and initiatives for the generation of complex historical models to which are linked useful information for specialists of architecture, construction and engineering, but also user community interested in cultural heritage. This paper presents an improvement in Historic Building Information Modeling (HBIM) turned into models for mobile apps based on virtual reality (VR) addressed to enhance the communication of Architectural Heritage. The opportunity of a collaboration with the Bahrain Authority for Culture and Antiquities (BACA) experts under the coordination of the Carleton University in a training project aimed at improving documentation skills for conservation and preventive maintenance of built heritage provided the availability of an extraordinary richness of data and surveying on the Shaikh Isa Bin Ali House. The case study of the Shaikh Isa Bin Ali House is an outstanding example of Bahrain architecture and one of the oldest surviving building in Muharraq, listed under the UNESCO sites, now transformed in a Museum, where the visit does not allow to perceive the richness of the traditions of the constructions, beside the beautiful architecture. The building was the seat of the ruler of Bahrain from 1869 until his death in 1932 and represented an interesting response to local building materials and climate. This vernacular architecture solved not only the climate problems but combined the solution with beauty, physical and social functionality. This research carries out digital preservation through HBIM and switches to Cloud and VR platforms to allow users to enter a 3D immersive scene, using models as a vehicle of content information

    A comparison of three thromboprophylaxis regimens in critically ill COVID-19 patients: An analysis of real-world data

    No full text
    Introduction: Thrombotic complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have received considerable attention. Although numerous conflicting findings have compared escalated thromboprophylaxis doses with a standard dose to prevent thrombosis, there is a paucity of literature comparing clinical outcomes in three different anticoagulation dosing regimens. Thus, we investigated the effectiveness and safety profiles of standard, intermediate, and high-anti-coagulation dosing strategies in COVID-19 critically ill patients. Methodology: This retrospective multicenter cohort study of intensive care unit (ICU) patients from the period of April 2020 to August 2021 in four Saudi Arabian centers. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years, diagnosis with severe or critical COVID-19 infection, and receiving prophylactic anticoagulant dose within 24–48 h of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was a composite of thrombotic events, with mortality rate and minor or major bleeding serving as secondary endpoints. We applied survival analyses with a matching weights procedure to control for confounding variables in the three arms. Results: A total of 811 patient records were reviewed, with 551 (standard-dose = 192, intermediate-dose = 180, and high-dose = 179) included in the analysis. After using weights matching, we found that the standard-dose group was not associated with an increase in the composite thrombotic events endpoint when compared to the intermediate-dose group {19.8 vs. 25%; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) =1.46, [95% confidence of interval (CI), 0.94–2.26]} or when compared to high-dose group [19.8 vs. 24%; aHR = 1.22 (95% CI, 0.88–1.72)]. Also, there were no statistically significant differences in overall in-hospital mortality between the standard-dose and the intermediate-dose group [51 vs. 53.4%; aHR = 1.4 (95% CI, 0.88–2.33)] or standard-dose and high-dose group [51 vs. 61.1%; aHR = 1.3 (95% CI, 0.83–2.20)]. Moreover, the risk of major bleeding was comparable in all three groups [standard vs. intermediate: 4.8 vs. 2.8%; aHR = 0.8 (95% CI, 0.23–2.74); standard vs. high: 4.8 vs. 9%; aHR = 2.1 (95% CI, 0.79–5.80)]. However, intermediate-dose and high-dose were both associated with an increase in minor bleeding incidence with aHR = 2.9 (95% CI, 1.26–6.80) and aHR = 3.9 (95% CI, 1.73–8.76), respectively. Conclusion: Among COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU, the three dosing regimens did not significantly affect the composite of thrombotic events and mortality. Compared with the standard-dose regimen, intermediate and high-dosing thromboprophylaxis were associated with a higher risk of minor but not major bleeding. Thus, these data recommend a standard dose as the preferred regimen. Copyright © 2022 Alrashed, Cahusac, Mohzari, Bamogaddam, Alfaifi, Mathew, Alrumayyan, Alqahtani, Alshammari, AlNekhilan, Binrokan, Alamri, Alshahrani, Alshahrani, Alanazi, Alhassan, Alsaeed, Almutairi, Albujaidy, AlJuaid, Almalki, Ahmed, Alajami, Aljishi, Alsheef, Alajlan, Almutairi, Alsirhani, Alotaibi, Aljaber, Bahammam, Aldandan, Almulhim, Abraham and Alamer.Open access journalThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]
    corecore