A grid-based infrastructure for distributed retrieval

In large-scale distributed retrieval, challenges of latency, heterogeneity, and dynamicity emphasise the importance of infrastructural support in reducing the development costs of state-of-the-art solutions. We present a service-based infrastructure for distributed retrieval which blends middleware facilities and a design framework to ‘lift’ the resource sharing approach and the computational services of a European Grid platform into the domain of e-Science applications. In this paper, we give an overview of the DILIGENT Search Framework and illustrate its exploitation in the field of Earth Science

Methods, data and tools for facilitating a 3D cultural heritage space

In recent years, the cultural heritage (CH) sector has experienced a rapid evolution due to the introduction of increasingly powerful digital technologies and ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) solutions. As for many other domains, digital data, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and Extended Reality (XR) are opening up extraordinary opportunities for expanding heritage knowledge capabilities while boosting the research on innovative solutions for its valorisation and preservation. Being aware of the fundamental and strategic role of CH in the history and identity of the European countries, the European Commission has assumed a central role in fuelling the policy debate and putting together stakeholders to take a step forward in CH digitization and use, primarily through initiatives, programs, and recommendations. Within this framework, the ongoing European 5DCulture project (https://www.5dculture.eu/) has been funded to enrich the offer of 3D CH digital assets in the common European Data Space for Cultural Heritage by creating high-quality 3D contents and to foster their re-use in several sectors, from tourism to education. Through 8 re-use scenarios around historic buildings and cityscapes, archaeology, and fashion, the project aims to deliver a set of digital tools and increase the capacity of CH institutions to more effectively re-use their 3D digital assets

Randomized controlled pilot study assessing efficacy, efficiency, and patient-reported outcomes measures of chairside and labside single-tooth restorations.

OBJECTIVES To test whether or not a chairside workflow (CHAIR) is similar to a labside workflow (LAB) in terms of efficacy (primary outcome) and efficiency (secondary outcome). MATERIAL AND METHODS Eighteen subjects in need of a single-tooth restoration in the posterior region of the maxilla or mandible were consecutively recruited and randomly assigned to the CHAIR or LAB workflow. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; efficacy) were assessed using a questionnaire with visual analog scale. The white AEsthetic score (WES) was applied to evaluate the AEsthetic outcome objectively. The clinical and laboratory time (efficiency) were recorded. Nonparametric methods were applied for the group comparisons. RESULTS The overall median AEsthetic evaluation after treatment was 10 (interquartile range = IQR: 9.5-10) in group CHAIR and 10 (IQR: 9.5-10) in-group LAB (Mann-Whitney [MW] test p = 1.000). The WES amounted to 4 (IQR: 3-5) (CHAIR) and to 8 (IQR: 7-9) (LAB) (MW test p < 0.0001). The median total working time for the clinician in-group CHAIR was 49.9 min. (IQR: 40.9-63.7) and 41.4 min. (IQR: 37.2-58.2) in-group LAB (MW test p = 0.387). CONCLUSIONS Subjective PROMs of single-tooth supported restorations fabricated in a CHAIR or LAB workflow led to similar scores of patients' satisfaction and a moderate negative correlation for the objective evaluation of the clinician in the LAB workflow. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE PROMs can be considered a key element in the decision-making process for restoring single-tooth restorations. The patients' perception of AEsthetics was similar for the CHAIR or LAB workflows. The additional efforts undertaken with the LAB workflow did not result in a patient benefit when compared to a CHAIR workflow

Randomized controlled pilot study assessing efficacy, efficiency, and patient-reported outcomes measures of chairside and labside single-tooth restorations

OBJECTIVES To test whether or not a chairside workflow (CHAIR) is similar to a labside workflow (LAB) in terms of efficacy (primary outcome) and efficiency (secondary outcome). MATERIAL AND METHODS Eighteen subjects in need of a single-tooth restoration in the posterior region of the maxilla or mandible were consecutively recruited and randomly assigned to the CHAIR or LAB workflow. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; efficacy) were assessed using a questionnaire with visual analog scale. The white AEsthetic score (WES) was applied to evaluate the AEsthetic outcome objectively. The clinical and laboratory time (efficiency) were recorded. Nonparametric methods were applied for the group comparisons. RESULTS The overall median AEsthetic evaluation after treatment was 10 (interquartile range = IQR: 9.5-10) in group CHAIR and 10 (IQR: 9.5-10) in-group LAB (Mann-Whitney [MW] test p = 1.000). The WES amounted to 4 (IQR: 3-5) (CHAIR) and to 8 (IQR: 7-9) (LAB) (MW test p < 0.0001). The median total working time for the clinician in-group CHAIR was 49.9 min. (IQR: 40.9-63.7) and 41.4 min. (IQR: 37.2-58.2) in-group LAB (MW test p = 0.387). CONCLUSIONS Subjective PROMs of single-tooth supported restorations fabricated in a CHAIR or LAB workflow led to similar scores of patients' satisfaction and a moderate negative correlation for the objective evaluation of the clinician in the LAB workflow. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE PROMs can be considered a key element in the decision-making process for restoring single-tooth restorations. The patients' perception of AEsthetics was similar for the CHAIR or LAB workflows. The additional efforts undertaken with the LAB workflow did not result in a patient benefit when compared to a CHAIR workflow

Randomized controlled clinical study comparing two types of two-piece dental implants supporting fixed restorations-Results at 8 years of loading

Objectives To assess clinical, technical, biological, and radiographic outcomes of implants supporting fixed restorations using two types of dental implants with non-matching implant–abutment junctions at 8 years. Materials and methods Sixty-four patients were randomly assigned to receive one of two implant systems (S1 or S2) and eventually fixed restorations. Patients were examined at loading (TL), one (T1), three (T3), five (T5), and eight years (T8). Outcome measures included implant and restoration survival, technical and biological complications, and radiographic bone levels. All data were analyzed on the implant and patient level. Results Ninety-eight implants were inserted in 64 patients and loaded with fixed restorations. At 8 years, 49 patients with 42 (S1) and 36 (S2) implants (25 in group S1 and 24 in group S2 on the patient level) were re-examined. The survival rates on the patient level were 97.6% (S1) and 97.2% (S2). The marginal bone levels (the primary endpoint) amounted to a gain of 0.21 mm (Q1: −0.11 mm; Q3: 0.5 mm) (S1) (p = .007) and to a loss of 0.24 mm (Q1: −0.79 mm; Q3: 0.05 mm) (S2) (p = .001) between baseline (TL) and T8 (intergroup p < .001). The technical complication rates were 28% (S1) and 12.5% (S2) (intergroup p = .289). Peri-implant mucositis was observed in 24% (S1) and 50% (S2) of the implants on the patient level (intergroup p = .792). The respective figures for peri-implantitis were 0% (S1) and 12.5% (S2) (intergroup p = .11). Conclusions Dental implants with non-matching implant–abutment junctions supporting fixed restorations resulted in high survival rates independent of the system used. Differences, mainly observed in terms of technical complications (in favor of S2), biological complications (in favor of S1), and marginal bone-level changes (in favor of group S1), appear to be clinically negligible

Tissue integration and biodegradation of soft tissue substitutes with and without compression: an experimental study in the rat

OBJECTIVES To analyze the influence of compression on tissue integration and degradation of soft tissue substitutes. MATERIAL AND METHODS Six subcutaneous pouches in twenty-eight rats were prepared and boxes made of Al$_{2}$O$_{3}$ were implanted and used as carriers for soft tissue substitutes: a collagen matrix (MG), two volume-stable collagen matrices (FG/MGA), and a polycaprolactone scaffold(E). The volume-stable materials (FG/MGA/E) were further implanted with a twofold (2) and a fourfold (4) compression, created by the stacking of additional layers of the substitute materials. The samples were retrieved at 1, 2, and 12 weeks (10 groups, 3 time points, n = 5 per time point and group, overall, 150 samples). The area fraction of infiltrated fibroblasts and inflammatory cells was evaluated histologically. Due to within-subject comparisons, mixed models were conducted for the primary outcome. The level of significance was set at 5%. RESULTS The area fraction of fibroblasts increased in all groups over time. At 12 weeks, the densely compressed materials FG4 (1.1%), MGA4 (1.7%), and MGA2 (2.5%) obtained lower values as compared to the other groups, ranging between 4.7 (E2) and 6.5% (MG). Statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) were observed between groups FG4 vs MG/FG2/E/E4 as well as between MGA4 vs MG/FG2/E/E4 and E vs MGA2. CONCLUSIONS Higher levels of compression led to delayed tissue integration. The effect of different compression levels was more distinct when compared to the differences between the materials. CLINICAL RELEVANCE All biomaterials demonstrated tissue integration and a minimal concomitant inflammatory reaction. Clinically, it might be more favorable to obtain a sufficient flap release or to reduce the material size to improve the tissue integration processes

Predicting complicated appendicitis based on clinical findings: the role of Alvarado and appendicitis inflammatory response scores

PURPOSE: The pre-interventional differentiation between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis is decisive for treatment. In the context of conservative therapy, the definitive diagnosis of uncomplicated appendicitis is mandatory. This study investigates the ability of clinical scoring systems and imaging to differentiate between the two entities. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of two cohorts from two tertiary referral centers in Switzerland and Germany. All consecutive patients underwent appendectomy between January 2008 and April 2013 (in the first cohort) or between January 2017 and June 2019 (the second cohort). Exclusion criteria did not apply as all patients found by the database search and received an appendectomy were included. Diagnostic testing and calculation of a receiver operating curve were performed to identify a cutoff for clinical scores that resulted in a minimum sensitivity of 90% to detect complicated appendicitis. The cutoff was combined with additional diagnostic imaging criteria to see if diagnostic properties could be improved. RESULTS: Nine hundred fifty-six patients were included in the analysis. Two hundred twenty patients (23%) had complicated appendicitis, and 736 patients (77%) had uncomplicated appendicitis or no inflammation. The complicated appendicitis cohort had a mean Alvarado score of 7.03 and a mean AIR of 5.21. This compared to a mean Alvarado of 6.53 and a mean AIR of 4.07 for the uncomplicated appendicitis cohort. The highest Alvarado score with a sensitivity of > 90% to detect complicated appendicitis was >== 5 (sensitivity = 95%, specificity 8.99%). The highest AIR score with a sensitivity of > 90% to detect complicated appendicitis was >== 3 (sensitivity 91.82%, specificity 18.53). The analysis showed that additional CT information did not improve the sensitivity of the proposed cut-offs. CONCLUSION: AIR and Alvarado scores showed limited capability to distinguish between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis even with additional imaging in this retrospective cohort. As conservative management of appendicitis needs to exclude patients with complicated disease reliably, appendectomy seems until now to remain the safest option to prevent undertreatment of this mostly benign disease

Reporting of Human Genome Epidemiology (HuGE) association studies: An empirical assessment

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Several thousand human genome epidemiology association studies are published every year investigating the relationship between common genetic variants and diverse phenotypes. Transparent reporting of study methods and results allows readers to better assess the validity of study findings. Here, we document reporting practices of human genome epidemiology studies.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Articles were randomly selected from a continuously updated database of human genome epidemiology association studies to be representative of genetic epidemiology literature. The main analysis evaluated 315 articles published in 2001–2003. For a comparative update, we evaluated 28 more recent articles published in 2006, focusing on issues that were poorly reported in 2001–2003.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>During both time periods, most studies comprised relatively small study populations and examined one or more genetic variants within a single gene. Articles were inconsistent in reporting the data needed to assess selection bias and the methods used to minimize misclassification (of the genotype, outcome, and environmental exposure) or to identify population stratification. Statistical power, the use of unrelated study participants, and the use of replicate samples were reported more often in articles published during 2006 when compared with the earlier sample.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We conclude that many items needed to assess error and bias in human genome epidemiology association studies are not consistently reported. Although some improvements were seen over time, reporting guidelines and online supplemental material may help enhance the transparency of this literature.</p

Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network

Although current electronic methods of scientific publishing offer increased opportunities for publishing all research studies and describing them in sufficient detail, health research literature still suffers from many shortcomings. These shortcomings seriously undermine the value and utility of the literature and waste scarce resources invested in the research. In recent years there have been several positive steps aimed at improving this situation, such as a strengthening of journals' policies on research publication and the wide requirement to register clinical trials