BWIBots: A platform for bridging the gap between AI and human–robot interaction research

Recent progress in both AI and robotics have enabled the development of general purpose robot platforms that are capable of executing a wide variety of complex, temporally extended service tasks in open environments. This article introduces a novel, custom-designed multi-robot platform for research on AI, robotics, and especially human–robot interaction for service robots. Called BWIBots, the robots were designed as a part of the Building-Wide Intelligence (BWI) project at the University of Texas at Austin. The article begins with a description of, and justification for, the hardware and software design decisions underlying the BWIBots, with the aim of informing the design of such platforms in the future. It then proceeds to present an overview of various research contributions that have enabled the BWIBots to better (a) execute action sequences to complete user requests, (b) efficiently ask questions to resolve user requests, (c) understand human commands given in natural language, and (d) understand human intention from afar. The article concludes with a look forward towards future research opportunities and applications enabled by the BWIBot platform

Lopinavir plus nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors, lopinavir plus raltegravir, or lopinavir monotherapy for second-line treatment of HIV (EARNEST): 144-week follow-up results from a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND:Millions of HIV-infected people worldwide receive antiretroviral therapy (ART) in programmes using WHO-recommended standardised regimens. Recent WHO guidelines recommend a boosted protease inhibitor plus raltegravir as an alternative second-line combination. We assessed whether this treatment option offers any advantage over the standard protease inhibitor plus two nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) second-line combination after 144 weeks of follow-up in typical programme settings. METHODS:We analysed the 144-week outcomes at the completion of the EARNEST trial, a randomised controlled trial done in HIV-infected adults or adolescents in 14 sites in five sub-Saharan African countries (Uganda, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Kenya, Zambia). Participants were those who were no longer responding to non-NRTI-based first-line ART, as assessed with WHO criteria, confirmed by viral-load testing. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (lopinavir 400 mg with ritonavir 100 mg, twice per day) plus two or three clinician-selected NRTIs (protease inhibitor plus NRTI group), protease inhibitor plus raltegravir (400 mg twice per day; protease inhibitor plus raltegravir group), or protease inhibitor monotherapy (plus raltegravir induction for first 12 weeks, re-intensified to combination therapy after week 96; protease inhibitor monotherapy group). Randomisation was by computer-generated randomisation sequence, with variable block size. The primary outcome was viral load of less than 400 copies per mL at week 144, for which we assessed non-inferiority with a one-sided α of 0·025, and superiority with a two-sided α of 0·025. The EARNEST trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 37737787. FINDINGS:Between April 12, 2010, and April 29, 2011, 1837 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 1277 patients were randomly assigned to an intervention group. In the primary (complete-case) analysis at 144 weeks, 317 (86%) of 367 in the protease inhibitor plus NRTI group had viral loads of less than 400 copies per mL compared with 312 (81%) of 383 in the protease inhibitor plus raltegravir group (p=0·07; lower 95% confidence limit for difference 10·2% vs specified non-inferiority margin 10%). In the protease inhibitor monotherapy group, 292 (78%) of 375 had viral loads of less than 400 copies per mL; p=0·003 versus the protease inhibitor plus NRTI group at 144 weeks. There was no difference between groups in serious adverse events, grade 3 or 4 adverse events (total or ART-related), or events that resulted in treatment modification. INTERPRETATION:Protease inhibitor plus raltegravir offered no advantage over protease inhibitor plus NRTI in virological efficacy or safety. In the primary analysis, protease inhibitor plus raltegravir did not meet non-inferiority criteria. A regimen of protease inhibitor with NRTIs remains the best standardised second-line regimen for use in programmes in resource-limited settings. FUNDING:European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), UK Medical Research Council, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Irish Aid, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Instituto Superiore di Sanita, Merck, ViiV Healthcare, WHO

Lopinavir plus nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors, lopinavir plus raltegravir, or lopinavir monotherapy for second-line treatment of HIV (EARNEST): 144-week follow-up results from a randomised controlled trial

Background Millions of HIV-infected people worldwide receive antiretroviral therapy (ART) in programmes using WHO-recommended standardised regimens. Recent WHO guidelines recommend a boosted protease inhibitor plus raltegravir as an alternative second-line combination. We assessed whether this treatment option offers any advantage over the standard protease inhibitor plus two nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) second-line combination after 144 weeks of follow-up in typical programme settings. Methods We analysed the 144-week outcomes at the completion of the EARNEST trial, a randomised controlled trial done in HIV-infected adults or adolescents in 14 sites in five sub-Saharan African countries (Uganda, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Kenya, Zambia). Participants were those who were no longer responding to non-NRTI-based first-line ART, as assessed with WHO criteria, confirmed by viral-load testing. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (lopinavir 400 mg with ritonavir 100 mg, twice per day) plus two or three clinician-selected NRTIs (protease inhibitor plus NRTI group), protease inhibitor plus raltegravir (400 mg twice per day; protease inhibitor plus raltegravir group), or protease inhibitor monotherapy (plus raltegravir induction for first 12 weeks, re-intensified to combination therapy after week 96; protease inhibitor monotherapy group). Randomisation was by computer-generated randomisation sequence, with variable block size. The primary outcome was viral load of less than 400 copies per mL at week 144, for which we assessed non-inferiority with a one-sided α of 0·025, and superiority with a two-sided α of 0·025. The EARNEST trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 37737787. Findings Between April 12, 2010, and April 29, 2011, 1837 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 1277 patients were randomly assigned to an intervention group. In the primary (complete-case) analysis at 144 weeks, 317 (86%) of 367 in the protease inhibitor plus NRTI group had viral loads of less than 400 copies per mL compared with 312 (81%) of 383 in the protease inhibitor plus raltegravir group (p=0·07; lower 95% confidence limit for difference 10·2% vs specified non-inferiority margin 10%). In the protease inhibitor monotherapy group, 292 (78%) of 375 had viral loads of less than 400 copies per mL; p=0·003 versus the protease inhibitor plus NRTI group at 144 weeks. There was no difference between groups in serious adverse events, grade 3 or 4 adverse events (total or ART-related), or events that resulted in treatment modification. Interpretation Protease inhibitor plus raltegravir offered no advantage over protease inhibitor plus NRTI in virological efficacy or safety. In the primary analysis, protease inhibitor plus raltegravir did not meet non-inferiority criteria. A regimen of protease inhibitor with NRTIs remains the best standardised second-line regimen for use in programmes in resource-limited settings. Funding European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), UK Medical Research Council, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Irish Aid, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Instituto Superiore di Sanita, Merck, ViiV Healthcare, WHO

Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation

Contains fulltext : 125374.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Edoxaban is a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor with proven antithrombotic effects. The long-term efficacy and safety of edoxaban as compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation is not known. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial comparing two once-daily regimens of edoxaban with warfarin in 21,105 patients with moderate-to-high-risk atrial fibrillation (median follow-up, 2.8 years). The primary efficacy end point was stroke or systemic embolism. Each edoxaban regimen was tested for noninferiority to warfarin during the treatment period. The principal safety end point was major bleeding. RESULTS: The annualized rate of the primary end point during treatment was 1.50% with warfarin (median time in the therapeutic range, 68.4%), as compared with 1.18% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.79; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.99; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 1.07; 97.5% CI, 0.87 to 1.31; P=0.005 for noninferiority). In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was a trend favoring high-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 0.87; 97.5% CI, 0.73 to 1.04; P=0.08) and an unfavorable trend with low-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 1.13; 97.5% CI, 0.96 to 1.34; P=0.10). The annualized rate of major bleeding was 3.43% with warfarin versus 2.75% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91; P<0.001) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.55; P<0.001). The corresponding annualized rates of death from cardiovascular causes were 3.17% versus 2.74% (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97; P=0.01), and 2.71% (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.96; P=0.008), and the corresponding rates of the key secondary end point (a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes) were 4.43% versus 3.85% (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.96; P=0.005), and 4.23% (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Both once-daily regimens of edoxaban were noninferior to warfarin with respect to the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism and were associated with significantly lower rates of bleeding and death from cardiovascular causes. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development; ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00781391.)