CONCEPTS AND IMPLICATIONS OF INTERACTIVE RECOVERY

RC 10562 (#47293) When working interactively on the computer, it is valuable to be able to undo a series of commands in order to return to a previous state. We identify contradictions and limitations in the basic concepts of undo. We introduce three types of undo functions with which we examine the characteristics of undo, explain these limitations, and determine the minimum requirements for a recovery facility. Then we discuss the implications of undo for user interfaces and suggest au.xiliary functions to display and simplify the resulting history structure and to view and recover prior states

SIGHT - A Tool for Building Multi-Media Structured-Document Interactive Editing and Formatting Applications

SIGHT is a tool for building applications that edit and format multi-media structured documents. The media supported include text, line graphics, handwriting, images and audio. These information media are maintained in a single integrated hierarchical database. The document architecture models documents as trees in which nodes can be shared, i.e., as directed acyclic graphs. For each document there is a logical (or abstract) represention tree and one or more physical (or layout) representation trees. A physical representation is the result of applying the formatter to a logical representation. Both trees are separate but share document content data. The physical representation is displayable and printable, but all editing effectively occurs in the logical representation. Any number of document types can be supported. A document type is defined by the node types it can contain, by how these node types can be hierarchically organized, by what each node type can contain and by the format specifications used in formatting the document. SIGHT provides applications a language to define new document types, a Core Editor, various specialized editors and a formatter. The Core Editor is further subdivided into a generic Tree Editor and a generic Node Editor. Both are not limited by document types but are sensitive to them. The Core Editor is the primary editing system

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.)