Shaping a Sustainable Old Worthington

Course Code: ENR/AEDE 4567This project is a collaboration between the Old Worthington Partnership, Old Worthington merchants, American Electric Power (AEP), and the Sustainable Worthington Capstone Group from The Ohio State University’s Environment, Economy, Development, and Sustainability (EEDS) major. Old Worthington is located in the historic downtown of Worthington, Ohio. The Old Worthington Partnership is a volunteer group that aims to enhance the Old Worthington experience by pursuing collaboration, engagement, and sustainability. The Old Worthington Partnership reached out to this capstone group for assistance in implementing AEP’s Small Business Express Program among their eligible merchants.Academic Major: Environment, Economy, Development, and Sustainabilit

Engineering Human Gait and the Potential Role of Wearable Sensors to Monitor Falls

Falls and falls related injuries are the major causes of non-fatal injuries in older adults. With recent advances in mathematics, science and technology, many scientists and engineers are devoting their efforts to prevent falls or to diminish the negative health outcomes after falls. In this chapter, we briefly review major engineering approaches to recover or augment the human gait function pre- and post-falls. Given the proliferation of wearable sensors and the availability of computational resources in the last decade, we focused on the role of wearable sensors to monitor gait instabilities and potentially prevent falls. We reviewed the general framework for gait monitoring using wearables and its utility in real-life settings such as homes or retirement communities. In the last part of the chapter, we focused on recent contributions that have proposed wearable sensors for gait monitoring and fall inferences

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used