Efficient large-scale underground utility mapping in New York City using a multi-channel ground-penetrating imaging radar system: International Society for Optical Engineering (SPIE

Abstract Ground-penetrating imaging radar ("GPiR") is a new technology that combines standard GPR (Ground-Penetrating Radar) with accurate positioning and advanced signal processing to create three dimensional (3D) images of the shallow subsurface. These images can reveal soil conditions and buried infrastructure-such as utility lines and conduits-down to depths of about 2 to 3 m (in typical organic soils) with a resolution of centimeters. A commercial GPiR called the CART Imaging System, which was designed for mapping urban infrastructure, has been developed in collaboration between Witten Technologies, Malå Geoscience and Schlumberger. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) sponsored research leading to the development of GPiR. The CART system uses a radar array consisting of 17 shielded antennas (9 transmitters and 8 receivers) that cover a 2 m swath on the ground with 16 bi-static GPR profiles. Each radar element in the array is a wideband bowtie antenna with a peak frequency of 200 MHz and a bandwidth extending from 50 MHz to 400 MHz. The array can collect data while moving at speeds up to about 1 km/h. During operation, a laser theodolite tracks the position of the array at all times. The system collects enough data in a single pass over the ground to form a 3D image beneath its track; multiple side-by-side passes are stitched together-using the positioning information provided by the theodolite and special processing and imaging algorithms-to create a seamless image of the subsurface. GPiR was first tested on a large scale in December 2000, in a pilot project for Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (ConEdison) that mapped a large underground area near the intersection of 149 th Street, Southern Boulevard and Prospect Avenue in the south Bronx. Four nights of surveying covered an area of approximately 12,000 m 2 (nearly 3 acres). The positions of surface features, such as curbs, street signs, valve and manhole covers, were also surveyed with the theodolite to provide a local reference grid. Final images were visualized with large-scale maps and electronic movies that scroll through the 3D data volume in depth slices and show the enormous complexity of the subsurface in large cities

Buprenorphine implants for opioid dependence

AimsTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of buprenorphine implants (BI) versus placebo implants (PI) for the treatment of opioid dependence. A secondary aim compared BI to open-label sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone tablets (BNX).DesignRandomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Subjects received either four buprenorphine implants (80 mg/implant) (n = 114), four placebo implants (n = 54) or open-label BNX (12-16 mg/day) (n = 119).SettingTwenty addiction treatment centers.ParticipantsAdult out-patients (ages 18-65) with DSM-IV-TR opioid dependence.MeasurementsThe primary efficacy end-point was the percentage of urine samples negative for opioids collected from weeks 1 to 24, examined as a cumulative distribution function (CDF).FindingsThe BI CDF was significantly different from placebo (P < 0.0001). Mean [95% confidence interval (CI)] proportions of urines negative for opioids were: BI = 31.2% (25.3, 37.1) and PI = 13.4% (8.3, 18.6). BI subjects had a higher study completion rate relative to placebo (64 versus 26%, P < 0.0001), lower clinician-rated (P < 0.0001) and patient-rated (P < 0.0001) withdrawal, lower patient-ratings of craving (P < 0.0001) and better subjects' (P = 0.031) and clinicians' (P = 0.022) global ratings of improvement. BI also resulted in significantly lower cocaine use (P = 0.0016). Minor implant-site reactions were comparable in the buprenorphine [27.2% (31 of 114)] and placebo groups [25.9% (14 of 54)]. BI were non-inferior to BNX on percentage of urines negative for opioids [mean (95% CI) = 33.5 (27.3, 39.6); 95% CI for the difference of proportions = (-10.7, 6.2)].ConclusionsCompared with placebo, buprenorphine implants result in significantly less frequent opioid use and are non-inferior to sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone tablets

vaccine-impact/epi_covid

This repository includes the code and data files of the paper: Routine childhood immunisation during the COVID-19 pandemic in Africa: a benefit–risk analysis of health benefits versus excess risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection