Visualization and Analysis Techniques for Three Dimensional Information Acquired by Confocal Microscopy

Confocal Scanning Laser Microscopy (CSLM) is particularly well suited for the acquisition of 3-dimensional data of microscopic objects. In the CSLM a specific volume in the object is sampled during the imaging process and the result is stored in a digital computer as a three-dimensional memory array. Optimal use of these data requires both the development of effective visual representations as well as analysis methods. In addition to the well known stereoscopic representation method a number of alternatives for various purposes are presented. When rendering in terms of solid-looking or semitransparent objects is required, an algorithm based on a simulated process of excitation and fluorescence is very suitable. Graphic techniques can be used to examine the 3-dimensional shape of surfaces. For (near-)real time applications a representation method should not require extensive previous data-processing or analysis. From the very extensive field of 3-D image analysis two examples are given

Advances in infrastructures and tools for multiagent systems

In the last few years, information system technologies have focused on solving challenges in order to develop distributed applications. Distributed systems can be viewed as collections of service-provider and ser vice-consumer components interlinked by dynamically defined workflows (Luck and McBurney 2008).Alberola Oltra, JM.; Botti Navarro, VJ.; Such Aparicio, JM. (2014). Advances in infrastructures and tools for multiagent systems. Information Systems Frontiers. 16:163-167. doi:10.1007/s10796-014-9493-6S16316716Alberola, J. M., Búrdalo, L., Julián, V., Terrasa, A., & García-Fornes, A. (2014). An adaptive framework for monitoring agent organizations. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(2). doi: 10.1007/s10796-013-9478-x .Alfonso, B., Botti, V., Garrido, A., & Giret, A. (2014). A MAS-based infrastructure for negotiation and its application to a water-right market. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(2). doi: 10.1007/s10796-013-9443-8 .Andrighetto, G., Castelfranchi, C., Mayor, E., McBreen, J., López-Sánchez, M., & Parsons, S. (2013). (Social) norm dynamics. In G. Andrighetto, G. Governatori, P. Noriega, & L. W. van der Torre (Eds.), Normative multi-agent systems (pp. 135–170). Dagstuhl: Schloss Dagstuhl--Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.Baarslag, T., Fujita, K., Gerding, E. H., Hindriks, K., Ito, T., Jennings, N. R., et al. (2013). Evaluating practical negotiating agents: results and analysis of the 2011 international competition. Artificial Intelligence, 198, 73–103.Boissier, O., Bordini, R. H., Hübner, J. F., Ricci, A., & Santi, A. (2013). Multi-agent oriented programming with JaCaMo. Science of Computer Programming, 78(6), 747–761.Campos, J., Esteva, M., López-Sánchez, M., Morales, J., & Salamó, M. (2011). Organisational adaptation of multi-agent systems in a peer-to-peer scenario. Computing, 91(2), 169–215.Carrera, A., Iglesias, C. A., & Garijo, M. (2014). Beast methodology: an agile testing methodology for multi-agent systems based on behaviour driven development. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(2). doi: 10.1007/s10796-013-9438-5 .Criado, N., Such, J. M., & Botti, V. (2014). Norm reasoning services. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(2). doi: 10.1007/s10796-013-9444-7 .Del Val, E., Rebollo, M., & Botti, V. (2014). Enhancing decentralized service discovery in open service-oriented multi-agent systems. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 28(1), 1–30.Denti, E., Omicini, A., & Ricci, A. (2002). Coordination tools for MAS development and deployment. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 16(9–10), 721–752.Dignum, V., & Dignum, F. (2012). A logic of agent organizations. Logic Journal of IGPL, 20(1), 283–316.Ferber, J., & Gutknecht, O. (1998). A meta-model for the analysis and design of organizations in multi-agent systems. In Multi agent systems. Proceedings. International Conference on (pp. 128–135). IEEE.Fogués, R. L., Such, J. M., Espinosa, A., & Garcia-Fornes, A. (2014). BFF: a tool for eliciting tie strength and user communities in social networking services. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(2). doi: 10.1007/s10796-013-9453-6 .Garcia, E., Giret, A., & Botti, V. (2011). Evaluating software engineering techniques for developing complex systems with multiagent approaches. Information and Software Technology, 53(5), 494–506.Garcia-Fornes, A., Hübner, J., Omicini, A., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J., & Botti, V. (2011). Infrastructures and tools for multiagent systems for the new generation of distributed systems. Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence, 24(7), 1095–1097.Jennings, N., Faratin, P., Lomuscio, A., Parsons, S., Sierra, C., & Wooldridge, M. (2001). Automated negotiation: prospects, methods and challenges. International Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(2), 199–215.Jung, Y., Kim, M., Masoumzadeh, A., & Joshi, J. B. (2012). A survey of security issue in multi-agent systems. Artificial Intelligence Review, 37(3), 239–260.Kota, R., Gibbins, N., & Jennings, N. R. (2012). Decentralized approaches for self-adaptation in agent organizations. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems (TAAS), 7(1), 1.Kraus, S. (1997). Negotiation and cooperation in multi-agent environments. Artificial Intelligence, 94(1), 79–97.Lin, Y. I., Chou, Y. W., Shiau, J. Y., & Chu, C. H. (2013). Multi-agent negotiation based on price schedules algorithm for distributed collaborative design. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 24(3), 545–557.Luck, M., & McBurney, P. (2008). Computing as interaction: agent and agreement technologies.Luck, M., McBurney, P., Shehory, O., & Willmott, S. (2005). Agent technology: Computing as interaction (A roadmap for agent based computing). AgentLink.Ossowski, S., & Menezes, R. (2006). On coordination and its significance to distributed and multiagent systems. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 18(4), 359–370.Ossowski, S., Sierra, C., & Botti. (2013). Agreement technologies: A computing perspective. In Agreement Technologies (pp. 3–16). Springer Netherlands.Pinyol, I., & Sabater-Mir, J. (2013). Computational trust and reputation models for open multi-agent systems: a review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 40(1), 1–25.Ricci, A., Piunti, M., & Viroli, M. (2011). Environment programming in multi-agent systems: an artifact-based perspective. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 23(2), 158–192.Sierra, C., & Debenham, J. (2006). Trust and honour in information-based agency. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on autonomous agents and multi agent systems, (p. 1225–1232). New York: ACM.Sierra, C., Botti, V., & Ossowski, S. (2011). Agreement computing. KI-Knstliche Intelligenz, 25(1), 57–61.Vasconcelos, W., García-Camino, A., Gaertner, D., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J. A., & Noriega, P. (2012). Distributed norm management for multi-agent systems. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(5), 5990–5999.Wooldridge, M. (2002). An introduction to multiagent systems. New York: Wiley.Wooldridge, M., & Jennings, N. R. (1995). Intelligent agents: theory and practice. Knowledge Engineering Review, 10(2), 115–152

Prospective study of color duplex ultrasonography compared with contrast venography in patients suspected of having deep venous thrombosis of the upper extremities

Background: The optimal strategy for diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is less well established for the upper extremities than for the lower extremities. Duplex color ultrasonography can be difficult to perform in the upper extremities because of their anatomy, and contrast venography is often indicated. Moreover, limited data exist on the use of duplex color ultrasonography in this setting. Objective: To determine the accuracy of duplex ultrasonography for diagnosis of DVT of the upper extremities. Design: Prospective study of duplex ultrasonography compared with venography. Setting: A teaching hospital in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Patients: 126 consecutive inpatients and outpatients with suspected DVT of the upper extremities. Measurements: Contrast venography was obtained after duplex ultrasonography and was judged independently. A three-step protocol, involving compression ultmonography, color ultrasonography, and color Doppler ultrasonography, was used. Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios for ultrasonography as a whole were calculated. The independent value of each step was assessed. Results: Venography and ultrasonography were not feasible in 23 of 126 patients (18%) and 1 of 126 patients (0.8%), respectively. Results of ultrasonography were inconclusive in 3 patients. Venography demonstrated thrombosis in 44 of 99 patients (44%); in 36 patients (36%), thrombosis was related to intravenous catheters or malignant disease, Sensitivity and specificity of duplex ultrasonography were 82% (95% Cl, 70% to 93%) and 82% (Cl, 72% to 92%), respectively. Venous incompressibility correlated well with thrombosis, whereas only 50% of isolated flow abnormalities proved to be thrombosis-related. Conclusions: Duplex ultrasonography may be the method of choice for initial diagnosis of patients with suspected thrombosis of the upper extremities. However, in patients with isolated flow abnormalities, contrast venography should be performe

Prevention of catheter-related venous thrombosis with nadroparin in patients receiving chemotherapy for hematologic malignancies: a randomized, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND: Hemato-oncology patients treated with intensive chemotherapy usually require the placement of a central venous catheter (CVC). CVCs are frequently complicated by catheter-related central venous thrombosis (CVT), which has been associated with an increased risk of pulmonary embolism and catheter-related infection. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis with s.c. low-molecular-weight heparin (nadroparin) administered once daily in a randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind trial in patients with hematologic malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with hematologic malignancies requiring intensive chemotherapy including autologous stem cell transplantation were eligible. The patients were randomized to receive nadroparin 2850 antifactor Xa units once daily or placebo s.c. for 3 weeks. Venography was performed on day 21 after CVC insertion. Secondary outcomes were bleeding and catheter-related infection. RESULTS: In total, 113 patients were randomized to nadroparin or placebo, and 87 patients (77%) underwent venography. In total, 11 venographically proven catheter-related CVTs were diagnosed. The frequency of catheter-related CVT was not significantly different between study groups, namely four catheter-related CVTs in the placebo group [9%; 95% CI: 0.002-0.16] vs. seven catheter-related CVTs in the nadroparin group (17%; 95% CI: 0.06-0.28). In addition, no difference in the incidence of catheter-related infection or bleeding was observed between the groups. CONCLUSION: This study showed that the actual risk for catheter-related CVT in patients with hematologic malignancies is lower than suggested in earlier studies in cancer patients. Although prophylactic administration of nadroparin appeared to be safe in this group of patients with a high risk of bleeding, it cannot be recommended for the prevention of catheter-related CVT or catheter-related infection in patients with hematologic malignancie

An introduction to the pocket negotiator: a general purpose negotiation support system

Due to copyright restrictions, the access to the full text of this article is only available via subscription.The Pocket Negotiator (PN) is a negotiation support system developed at TU Delft as a tool for supporting people in bilateral negotiations over multi-issue negotiation problems in arbitrary domains. Users are supported in setting their preferences, estimating those of their opponent, during the bidding phase and sealing the deal. We describe the overall architecture, the essentials of the underlying techniques, the form that support takes during the negotiation phases, and we share evidence of the effectiveness of the Pocket Negotiator.Dutch Technology Foundation ST

A sequential model of bargaining in logic programming

This paper proposes a sequential model of bargaining specifying reasoning processes of an agent behind bargaining procedures. We encode agents’ background knowledge, demands, and bargaining constraints in logic programs and represent bargaining outcomes in answer sets. We assume that in each bargaining situation, each agent has a set of goals to achieve, which are normally unachievable without an agreement among all the agents who are involved in the bargaining. Through an alternating-offers procedure, an agreement among bargaining agents may be reached by abductive reasoning.We show that the procedure converges to a Nash equilibrium if each agent makes rational offers/counter-offers in each round. In addition, the sequential model also has a number of desirable properties, such as mutual commitments, individual rationality, satisfactoriness, and honesty