X-RHex: A Highly Mobile Hexapedal Robot for Sensorimotor Tasks

We report on the design and development of X-RHex, a hexapedal robot with a single actuator per leg, intended for real-world mobile applications. X-RHex is an updated version of the RHex platform, designed to offer substantial improvements in power, run-time, payload size, durability, and terrain negotiation, with a smaller physical volume and a comparable footprint and weight. Furthermore, X-RHex is designed to be easier to build and maintain by using a variety of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components for a majority of its internals. This document describes the X-RHex architecture and design, with a particular focus on the new ability of this robot to carry modular payloads as a laboratory on legs. X-RHex supports a variety of sensor suites on a small, mobile robotic platform intended for broad, general use in research, defense, and search and rescue applications. Comparisons with previous RHex platforms are presented throughout, with preliminary tests indicating that the locomotive capabilities of X-RHex can meet or exceed the previous platforms. With the additional payload capabilities of X-RHex, we claim it to be the first robot of its size to carry a fully programmable GPU for fast, parallel sensor processing

Caveat medicus:Clinician experiences in publishing reports of serious oncology-associated adverse drug reactions

Oncology-associated adverse drug/device reactions can be fatal. Some clinicians who treat single patients with severe oncology-associated toxicities have researched case series and published this information. We investigated motivations and experiences of select individuals leading such efforts. Clinicians treating individual patients who developed oncology-associated serious adverse drug events were asked to participate. Inclusion criteria included having index patient information, reporting case series, and being collaborative with investigators from two National Institutes of Health funded pharmacovigilance networks. Thirty-minute interviews addressed investigational motivation, feedback from pharmaceutical manufacturers, FDA personnel, and academic leadership, and recommendations for improving pharmacovigilance. Responses were analyzed using constant comparative methods of qualitative analysis. Overall, 18 clinicians met inclusion criteria and 14 interviewees are included. Primary motivations were scientific curiosity, expressed by six clinicians. A less common theme was public health related (three clinicians). Six clinicians received feedback characterized as supportive from academic leaders, while four clinicians received feedback characterized as negative. Three clinicians reported that following the case series publication they were invited to speak at academic institutions worldwide. Responses from pharmaceutical manufacturers were characterized as negative by 12 clinicians. One clinician's wife called the post-reporting time the "Maalox month," while another clinician reported that the manufacturer collaboratively offered to identify additional cases of the toxicity. Responses from FDA employees were characterized as collaborative for two clinicians, neutral for five clinicians, unresponsive for negative by six clinicians. Three clinicians endorsed developing improved reporting mechanisms for individual physicians, while 11 clinicians endorsed safety activities that should be undertaken by persons other than a motivated clinician who personally treats a patient with a severe adverse drug/device reaction. Our study provides some of the first reports of clinician motivations and experiences with reporting serious or potentially fatal oncology-associated adverse drug or device reactions. Overall, it appears that negative feedback from pharmaceutical manufacturers and mixed feedback from the academic community and/or the FDA were reported. Big data, registries, Data Safety Monitoring Boards, and pharmacogenetic studies may facilitate improved pharmacovigilance efforts for oncology-associated adverse drug reactions. These initiatives overcome concerns related to complacency, indifference, ignorance, and system-level problems as barriers to documenting and reporting adverse drug events- barriers that have been previously reported for clinician reporting of serious adverse drug reactions

Racial differences in treatment and survival in older patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) comprises 31% of lymphomas in the United States. Although it is an aggressive type of lymphoma, 40% to 50% of patients are cured with treatment. The study objectives were to identify patient factors associated with treatment and survival in DLBCL.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry data linked to Medicare claims, we identified 7,048 patients diagnosed with DLBCL between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2005. Patients were followed from diagnosis until the end of their claims history (maximum December 31, 2007) or death. Medicare claims were used to characterize the first infused chemo-immunotherapy (C-I therapy) regimen and to identify radiation. Multivariate analyses were performed to identify patient demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical factors associated with treatment and with survival. Outcomes variables in the survival analysis were all-cause mortality, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) mortality, and other/unknown cause mortality.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Overall, 84% (n = 5,887) received C-I therapy or radiation treatment during the observation period: both, 26%; C-I therapy alone, 53%; and radiation alone, 5%. Median age at diagnosis was 77 years, 54% were female, 88% were white, and 43% had Stage III or IV disease at diagnosis. The median time to first treatment was 42 days, and 92% of these patients had received their first treatment by day 180 following diagnosis. In multivariate analysis, the treatment rate was significantly lower among patients ≥ 80 years old, blacks versus whites, those living in a census tract with ≥ 12% poverty, and extra-nodal disease. Blacks had a lower treatment rate overall (Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.77; P < 0.001), and were less likely to receive treatment within 180 days of diagnosis (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.63; P = 0.002) than whites. In multivariate survival analysis, black race was associated with higher all-cause mortality (HR 1.24; P = 0.01) and other/unknown cause mortality (HR 1.35; P = 0.01), but not mortality due to NHL (HR 1.16; P = 0.19).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In elderly patients diagnosed with DLBCL, there are large differences in treatment access and survival between blacks and whites.</p