AMPLE: an anytime planning and execution framework for dynamic and uncertain problems in robotics

Acting in robotics is driven by reactive and deliberative reasonings which take place in the competition between execution and planning processes. Properly balancing reactivity and deliberation is still an open question for harmonious execution of deliberative plans in complex robotic applications. We propose a flexible algorithmic framework to allow continuous real-time planning of complex tasks in parallel of their executions. Our framework, named AMPLE, is oriented towards robotic modular architectures in the sense that it turns planning algorithms into services that must be generic, reactive, and valuable. Services are optimized actions that are delivered at precise time points following requests from other modules that include states and dates at which actions are needed. To this end, our framework is divided in two concurrent processes: a planning thread which receives planning requests and delegates action selection to embedded planning softwares in compliance with the queue of internal requests, and an execution thread which orchestrates these planning requests as well as action execution and state monitoring. We show how the behavior of the execution thread can be parametrized to achieve various strategies which can differ, for instance, depending on the distribution of internal planning requests over possible future execution states in anticipation of the uncertain evolution of the system, or over different underlying planners to take several levels into account. We demonstrate the flexibility and the relevance of our framework on various robotic benchmarks and real experiments that involve complex planning problems of different natures which could not be properly tackled by existing dedicated planning approaches which rely on the standard plan-then-execute loop

Not Just an Urban Phenomenon: Uninsured Rural Trauma Patients at Increased Risk for Mortality

Introduction: National studies of largely urban populations showed increased risk of traumatic death among uninsured patients, as compared to those insured. No similar studies have been done for major trauma centers serving rural states. Methods: We performed retrospective analyses using trauma registry records from adult, non-burn patients admitted to a single American College of Surgeons-certified Level 1 trauma center in a rural state (2003-2010, n=13,680) and National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) registry records (2002-2008, n=380,182). Risk of traumatic death was estimated using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results: We found that 9% of trauma center patients and 27% of NTDB patients were uninsured. Overall mortality was similar for both (~4.5%). After controlling for covariates, uninsured trauma center patients were almost five times more likely to die and uninsured NTDB patients were 75% more likely to die than commercially insured patients. The risk of death among Medicaid patients was not significantly different from the commercially insured for either dataset. Conclusion: Our results suggest that even with an inclusive statewide trauma system and an emergency department that does not triage by payer status, uninsured patients presenting to the trauma center were at increased risk of traumatic death relative to patients with commercial insurance

Not Just an Urban Phenomenon: Uninsured Rural Trauma Patients at Increased Risk for Mortality

Introduction: National studies of largely urban populations showed increased risk of traumatic death among uninsured patients, as compared to those insured. No similar studies have been done for major trauma centers serving rural states. Methods: We performed retrospective analyses using trauma registry records from adult, non-burn patients admitted to a single American College of Surgeons-certified Level 1 trauma center in a rural state (2003-2010, n=13,680) and National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) registry records (2002-2008, n=380,182). Risk of traumatic death was estimated using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results: We found that 9% of trauma center patients and 27% of NTDB patients were uninsured. Overall mortality was similar for both (~4.5%). After controlling for covariates, uninsured trauma center patients were almost five times more likely to die and uninsured NTDB patients were 75% more likely to die than commercially insured patients. The risk of death among Medicaid patients was not significantly different from the commercially insured for either dataset. Conclusion: Our results suggest that even with an inclusive statewide trauma system and an emergency department that does not triage by payer status, uninsured patients presenting to the trauma center were at increased risk of traumatic death relative to patients with commercial insurance