Použití systému Linguistic Fuzzy-Logic Control pro modelování dynamických systémů

The article presents use of a linguistic fuzzy-logic control (LFLC) system for dynamic system modelling. The presented applications were verified on real laboratory tasks in the Laboratory of Intelligent Systems at the University of Ostrava. The LFLC system was developed at the University of Ostrava, Institute for Research and Applications of Fuzzy Modeling. This technology enables users to describe the system behaviour as a set of fuzzy rules. Input and output variables scales are defined by contexts and their change allows using the same system description for systems with similar behaviour very easily

Hypersenzitivita IV. typu na titan: vzácná nebo jen vzácně rozpoznaná?

The presented review aims to summarize the current knowledge of hypersensitivity to titanium – a material widely used in medical applications thanks to its exceptional chemical stability, resistance to corrosion, low specific weight and high strength. The hypersensitivity to metals is usually caused by the Type IV immunopathological reaction. Case reports on allergic reactions to titanium are rare but the actual occurrence can be expected to be much higher, especially due to its problematic detection. Although cutaneous patch tests are widely accepted and used for the diagnosis of hypersensitivity of numerous metals (e.g. Ni), it is notoriously unreliable in case of allergies to titanium, which may be associated with the low percutaneous transport of titanium and its salts. The Lymphocyte Transformation Test has superior sensitivity but it remains mostly unknown among clinicians and there are not many laboratories capable of performing it. This review presents numerous case reports indicating, in combination with the above-mentioned facts, that hypersensitivity to titanium should be considered as a possible cause also in non-specific problems associated with titanium implant failure.Web of Science902918

Current status of cell-based therapy in patients with critical limb ischemia

(1) Background: The treatment of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is focused on improving perfusion and oxygenation in the affected limb. Standard revascularization methods include bypass surgery, endovascular interventional procedures, or hybrid revascularization. Cell-based therapy can be an alternative strategy for patients with no-option critical limb ischemia who are not eligible for endovascular or surgical procedures. (2) Aims: The aim of this narrative review was to provide an up-to-date critical overview of the knowledge and evidence-based medicine data on the position of cell therapy in the treatment of PAD. The current evidence on the cell-based therapy is summarized and future perspectives outlined, emphasizing the potential of exosomal cell-free approaches in patients with critical limb ischemia. (3) Methods: Cochrane and PubMed databases were searched for keywords "critical limb ischemia and cell therapy". In total, 589 papers were identified, 11 of which were reviews and 11 were meta-analyses. These were used as the primary source of information, using cross-referencing for identification of additional papers. (4) Results: Meta-analyses focusing on cell therapy in PAD treatment confirm significantly greater odds of limb salvage in the first year after the cell therapy administration. Reported odds ratio estimates of preventing amputation being mostly in the region 1.6-3, although with a prolonged observation period, it seems that the odds ratio can grow even further. The odds of wound healing were at least two times higher when compared with the standard conservative therapy. Secondary endpoints of the available meta-analyses are also included in this review. Improvement of perfusion and oxygenation parameters in the affected limb, pain regression, and claudication interval prolongation are discussed. (5) Conclusions: The available evidence-based medicine data show that this technique is safe, associated with minimum complications or adverse events, and effective.Web of Science2123art. no. 899

Comparison of Two Commercially Available Interferon-γ Release Assays for T-Cell-Mediated Immunity and Evaluation of Humoral Immunity against SARS-CoV-2 in Healthcare Workers

Cellular immunity against SARS-CoV-2 is an important component of the immune response to the virus. At present, two such tests based on interferon-gamma release (interferon-γ release assays, IGRAs) are available—Quan-T-Cell SARS-CoV-2 by EUROIMMUN and T-SPOT.COVID by Oxford Immunotec. In this paper, we compared the results of these two tests in 90 subjects employed at the Public Health Institute Ostrava who had previously undergone COVID-19 infection or were vaccinated against that disease. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first head-to-head comparison of these two tests evaluating T-cell-mediated immunity against SARS-CoV-2. In addition, we also evaluated humoral immunity in the same individuals using the in-house virus neutralization test and IgG ELISA assay. The evaluation yielded similar results for both IGRAs, with Quan-T-Cell appearing to be insignificantly (p = 0.08) more sensitive (all 90 individuals were at least borderline positive) than T-SPOT.COVID (negative results found in five patients). The overall qualitative (presence/absence of immune response) agreement of both tests with virus neutralization test and anti-S IgG was also excellent (close or equal to 100% in all subgroups, with the exception of unvaccinated Omicron convalescents, a large proportion of whom, i.e., four out of six subjects, were IgG negative while at least borderline positive for T-cell-mediated immunity measured by Quan-T). This implies that the evaluation of T-cell-mediated immunity is a more sensitive indicator of immune response than the evaluation of IgG seropositivity. This is true at least for unvaccinated patients with a history of being infected only by the Omicron variant, but also likely for other groups of patients

Comparison of Two Commercially Available Interferon-γ Release Assays for T-Cell-Mediated Immunity and Evaluation of Humoral Immunity against SARS-CoV-2 in Healthcare Workers

Cellular immunity against SARS-CoV-2 is an important component of the immune response to the virus. At present, two such tests based on interferon-gamma release (interferon-γ release assays, IGRAs) are available—Quan-T-Cell SARS-CoV-2 by EUROIMMUN and T-SPOT.COVID by Oxford Immunotec. In this paper, we compared the results of these two tests in 90 subjects employed at the Public Health Institute Ostrava who had previously undergone COVID-19 infection or were vaccinated against that disease. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first head-to-head comparison of these two tests evaluating T-cell-mediated immunity against SARS-CoV-2. In addition, we also evaluated humoral immunity in the same individuals using the in-house virus neutralization test and IgG ELISA assay. The evaluation yielded similar results for both IGRAs, with Quan-T-Cell appearing to be insignificantly (p = 0.08) more sensitive (all 90 individuals were at least borderline positive) than T-SPOT.COVID (negative results found in five patients). The overall qualitative (presence/absence of immune response) agreement of both tests with virus neutralization test and anti-S IgG was also excellent (close or equal to 100% in all subgroups, with the exception of unvaccinated Omicron convalescents, a large proportion of whom, i.e., four out of six subjects, were IgG negative while at least borderline positive for T-cell-mediated immunity measured by Quan-T). This implies that the evaluation of T-cell-mediated immunity is a more sensitive indicator of immune response than the evaluation of IgG seropositivity. This is true at least for unvaccinated patients with a history of being infected only by the Omicron variant, but also likely for other groups of patients

Outcomes of mini-invasive arthroscopic arthrolysis combined with locking screw and/or intramedullary nail extraction after osteosynthesis of the proximal humerus fracture

Data on the effectiveness of arthroscopic arthrolysis and extraction of osteosynthetic material after osteosynthesis of the proximal humerus in patients with persisting problems are rare and insufficient. In this study, we performed arthroscopic arthrolysis and extraction of fixation screws, and, where protruding, extraction of the nail in 34 patients with problems persisting 12 months after osteosynthesis of the proximal humerus using an intramedullary nail. The effectiveness of the treatment was assessed using the Constant-Murley shoulder score and forward flexion difference between the treated arm and the contralateral one. A median increase of 16 points in CMS score and 30 degrees reduction in the arm forward flexion difference was recorded 12 months after the arthroscopy. The improvement was significantly higher in the patient group with intramedullary nail extraction (however, this group had worse pre-operative values and the screw was only extracted where likely to cause problems). The median time to heal was 11 weeks; no serious peri- or post-procedural complications occurred. Mini-invasive arthroscopic arthrolysis combined with extraction of osteosynthetic material proved to be a safe and effective method for treatment of patients after osteosynthesis of the proximal humerus using an intramedullary nail with persisting pain and/or mobility limitation.Web of Science112art. no. 36

Immune Response 5–7 Months after Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in Elderly Nursing Home Residents in the Czech Republic: Comparison of Three Vaccines

Background and Aims: Elderly nursing home residents are especially prone to a severe course of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this study, we aimed to investigate the complex immune response after vaccination depending on the convalescence status and vaccine. Methods: Sampling took place in September–October 2021. IgG antibodies against spike protein and nucleocapsid protein, the titer of virus neutralization antibodies against delta and (on a subset of patients) omicron, and cellular immunity (interferon-gamma release assay) were tested in nursing home residents vaccinated with Pfizer, Moderna (both 30–31 weeks after the completion of vaccination), or AstraZeneca (23 weeks) vaccines. The prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was evaluated in Stata version 17. Results: 95.2% (95% CI: 92.5–97.1%) of the 375 participants had positive results of anti-S IgG, 92.8% (95% CI: 89.7–95.2%) were positive in virus neutralization assay against delta, and 89.0% (95% CI: 84.5–92.5%) in the interferon-gamma-releasing assay detecting cellular immunity. Results of the virus neutralization assay against omicron correlated with those against delta but the neutralization capacity was reduced by about half. As expected, the worst results were found for the AstraZeneca vaccine, although the vaccination-to-test period was the shortest for this vaccine. All immune parameters were significantly higher in convalescent residents than in naive residents after vaccination. No case of COVID-19 occurred during the vaccination-to-test period. Conclusions: A high immune response, especially among vaccinated convalescents (i.e., residents with hybrid immunity), was found in elderly nursing home residents 5–7 months after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. In view of this, it appears that such residents are much better protected from COVID-19 than those who are only vaccinated and the matter of individual approach to the booster dose in such individuals should be further discussed