Forestry timber typing. Tanana demonstration project, Alaska ASVT

The feasibility of using LANDSAT digital data in conjunction with topographic data to delineate commercial forests by stand size and crown closure in the Tanana River basin of Alaska was tested. A modified clustering approach using two LANDSAT dates to generate an initial forest type classification was then refined with topographic data. To further demonstrate the ability of remotely sensed data in a fire protection planning framework, the timber type data were subsequently integrated with terrain information to generate a fire hazard map of the study area. This map provides valuable assistance in initial attack planning, determining equipment accessibility, and fire growth modeling. The resulting data sets were incorporated into the Alaska Department of Natural Resources geographic information system for subsequent utilization

Analysis of the Tanana River Basin using LANDSAT data

Digital image classification techniques were used to classify land cover/resource information in the Tanana River Basin of Alaska. Portions of four scenes of LANDSAT digital data were analyzed using computer systems at Ames Research Center in an unsupervised approach to derive cluster statistics. The spectral classes were identified using the IDIMS display and color infrared photography. Classification errors were corrected using stratification procedures. The classification scheme resulted in the following eleven categories; sedimented/shallow water, clear/deep water, coniferous forest, mixed forest, deciduous forest, shrub and grass, bog, alpine tundra, barrens, snow and ice, and cultural features. Color coded maps and acreage summaries of the major land cover categories were generated for selected USGS quadrangles (1:250,000) which lie within the drainage basin. The project was completed within six months

Safety of the Deferral of Coronary Revascularization on the Basis of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements in Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Acute Coronary Syndromes.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients deferred from coronary revascularization on the basis of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements in stable angina pectoris (SAP) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS). BACKGROUND: Assessment of coronary stenosis severity with pressure guidewires is recommended to determine the need for myocardial revascularization. METHODS: The safety of deferral of coronary revascularization in the pooled per-protocol population (n = 4,486) of the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation) and iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome) randomized clinical trials was investigated. Patients were stratified according to revascularization decision making on the basis of iFR or FFR and to clinical presentation (SAP or ACS). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS: Coronary revascularization was deferred in 2,130 patients. Deferral was performed in 1,117 patients (50%) in the iFR group and 1,013 patients (45%) in the FFR group (p < 0.01). At 1 year, the MACE rate in the deferred population was similar between the iFR and FFR groups (4.12% vs. 4.05%; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 1.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 1.79; p = 0.60). A clinical presentation with ACS was associated with a higher MACE rate compared with SAP in deferred patients (5.91% vs. 3.64% in ACS and SAP, respectively; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 0.61 in favor of SAP; 95% confidence interval: 0.38 to 0.99; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, deferral of revascularization is equally safe with both iFR and FFR, with a low MACE rate of about 4%. Lesions were more frequently deferred when iFR was used to assess physiological significance. In deferred patients presenting with ACS, the event rate was significantly increased compared with SAP at 1 year.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

NASA’s New Wildland Fire Earth Observation Science & Applications Programmatic Developments

In 2021, the U.S. National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) initiated new programmatic elements within the Science Mission Directorate (SMD) and the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) focused on supporting wildland fire science and applications improvements, employing the vast array of NASA scientific knowledge, airborne and space-borne Earth Observations (EO) capabilities, technology development (sensor systems, etc.), and large framework modeling efforts. Within the Science Mission Directorate, the NASA Earth Science Division (ESD) will focus on improving our understanding of wildland fire through EO tools and applying rigorous-tested modeling and results of that research into operational use. The ESD Wildfire strategy is to invest in new technology and to better integrate NASA’s satellite, airborne, and ground-based observations with wildfire models to provide the wildfire stakeholders with the information they need to make informed decisions about the pre-, active-, and post-fire conditions. The Applied Science Program has restarted the Wildland Fire Applications Program with a focus on engaging wildland fire management and the fire science community in transitioning EO science efforts into routine use by land management entities at the local, state, national and international level. The NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate will focus on arenas where their aeronautics science and engineering outcomes can benefit the fire management community as well, specifically in the innovative development of Uncrewed Aircraft systems, congested mixed-use platform airspace management issues, new platform configurations supporting wildland fire missions, and other aeronautics-related science/engineering capabilities which may benefit the fire management community. In total, these developments represent a major thrust forward, supporting the goals of utilizing NASA science to benefit humankind. This presentation will highlight the various wildland fire science focus areas identified through collaborations with the wildland fire science and management community and highlight the plans of this new NASA focus area

Algorithmic Versus Expert Human Interpretation of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Coronary Pressure-Wire Pull Back Data

Objectives The aim of this study was to investigate whether algorithmic interpretation (AI) of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) pressure-wire pull back data would be noninferior to expert human interpretation. Background Interpretation of iFR pressure-wire pull back data can be complex and is subjective. Methods Fifteen human experts interpreted 1,008 iFR pull back traces (691 unique, 317 duplicate). For each trace, experts determined the hemodynamic appropriateness for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and, in such cases, the optimal physiological strategy for PCI. The heart team (HT) interpretation was determined by consensus of the individual expert opinions. The same 1,008 pull back traces were also interpreted algorithmically. The coprimary hypotheses of this study were that AI would be noninferior to the interpretation of the median expert human in determining: 1) the hemodynamic appropriateness for PCI; and 2) the physiological strategy for PCI. Results Regarding the hemodynamic appropriateness for PCI, the median expert human demonstrated 89.3% agreement with the HT in comparison with 89.4% for AI (p < 0.01 for noninferiority). Across the 372 cases judged as hemodynamically appropriate for PCI according to the HT, the median expert human demonstrated 88.8% agreement with the HT in comparison with 89.7% for AI (p < 0.0001 for noninferiority). On reproducibility testing, the HT opinion itself changed 1 in 10 times for both the appropriateness for PCI and the physiological PCI strategy. In contrast, AI showed no change. Conclusions AI of iFR pressure-wire pull back data was noninferior to expert human interpretation in determining both the hemodynamic appropriateness for PCI and the optimal physiological strategy for PCI

Safety of the Deferral of Coronary Revascularization on the Basis of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements in Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Acute Coronary Syndromes

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients deferred from coronary revascularization on the basis of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements in stable angina pectoris (SAP) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS). // Background: Assessment of coronary stenosis severity with pressure guidewires is recommended to determine the need for myocardial revascularization. // Methods: The safety of deferral of coronary revascularization in the pooled per-protocol population (n = 4,486) of the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation) and iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome) randomized clinical trials was investigated. Patients were stratified according to revascularization decision making on the basis of iFR or FFR and to clinical presentation (SAP or ACS). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization at 1 year. // Results: Coronary revascularization was deferred in 2,130 patients. Deferral was performed in 1,117 patients (50%) in the iFR group and 1,013 patients (45%) in the FFR group (p < 0.01). At 1 year, the MACE rate in the deferred population was similar between the iFR and FFR groups (4.12% vs. 4.05%; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 1.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 1.79; p = 0.60). A clinical presentation with ACS was associated with a higher MACE rate compared with SAP in deferred patients (5.91% vs. 3.64% in ACS and SAP, respectively; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 0.61 in favor of SAP; 95% confidence interval: 0.38 to 0.99; p = 0.04). // Conclusions: Overall, deferral of revascularization is equally safe with both iFR and FFR, with a low MACE rate of about 4%. Lesions were more frequently deferred when iFR was used to assess physiological significance. In deferred patients presenting with ACS, the event rate was significantly increased compared with SAP at 1 year