Environmental Impact Assessment of Augmented Reality Technology Implementation

Sustainability has a been a buzz word for a long term since the inception of the Brundtland commission. With the Paris agreement in 2016 and the on-going cli- matic changes have all lead to one solution, i.e., sustainability. On the other hand, the fourth industrial revolution that was spoken about back in 2011 has taken off widely with the use of robotics, machine learning, system integration, and big data. This has steered industries to use new techniques to be incorporated like sustainable manufacturing. There are a lot of technologies under Industry 4.0, one such device that is considered here is Augmented Reality. The technology is very useful as it can reduce human errors and help inexperienced technicians to work efficiently with the help of all preloaded data in its cloud library. There has been very less research in the field of LCA on AR devices. This study focuses on the environmental impacts during the life cycle of the AR device and the environmental benefits of using AR technology. We have adopted a mixed approach as the methodology for this study. A string of interviews and literature study has been performed to conduct a LCIA study with the help of OpenLCA software. By the end of the research, the readers can find the results accomplished from the Life cycle assessment study such as the environmental benefits and consequences. Transport sector, shipping, is found to be the biggest concern in terms of environmental loads. Climate change is one impact category which is disturbed very much due to the transport sector. The method and results aid the stakeholders and the actors to evaluate its sustain- able performance in the implementation of AR in remanufacturing process and the impacts to the environment. By adding a few data gaps in the current study, this study can help to a wide extent in improving the efficiency of processes. reduce hu- man error and inexperience at the manufacturing sector. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis is carried out to find critical variables that affect the feasibility of our re- sults. Finally, recommendations are also provided where the environmental impacts can be minimised

Electrochemical Biosensing and Deep Learning-Based Approaches in the Diagnosis of COVID-19: A Review

COVID-19 caused by the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 virus taking a huge toll on global health and caused life-threatening medical complications and elevated mortality rates, especially among older adults and people with existing morbidity. Current evidence suggests that the virus spreads primarily through respiratory droplets emitted by infected persons when breathing, coughing, sneezing, or speaking. These droplets can reach another person through their mouth, nose, or eyes, resulting in infection. The gold standard\u27\u27 for clinical diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 is the laboratory-based nucleic acid amplification test, which includes the reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test on nasopharyngeal swab samples. The main concerns with this type of test are the relatively high cost, long processing time, and considerable false-positive or false-negative results. Alternative approaches have been suggested to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus so that those infected and the people they have been in contact with can be quickly isolated to break the transmission chains and hopefully, control the pandemic. These alternative approaches include electrochemical biosensing and deep learning. In this review, we discuss the current state-of-the-art technology used in both fields for public health surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 and present a comparison of both methods in terms of cost, sampling, timing, accuracy, instrument complexity, global accessibility, feasibility, and adaptability to mutations. Finally, we discuss the issues and potential future research approaches for detecting the SARS-CoV-2 virus utilizing electrochemical biosensing and deep learning

Beyond physical health: the role of psychosocial challenges and stigma in tackling the COVID-19 pandemic—A scoping review

BackgroundThe socio-cultural response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the level of adherence to evidence-based guidelines played a crucial role in determining the morbidity and mortality outcomes during the pandemic. This review aims to evaluate the impact of stigma and psycho-socio-cultural challenges on efforts to control the COVID-19 pandemic and to identify ways to mitigate such challenges in future pandemics.MethodsUsing keywords including COVID-19, coronavirus, stigma, psychosocial challenges, and others, the authors searched seven major databases with a time limitation of July 2021, which yielded 2,038 results. Out of these, 15 papers were included in this review.ResultsThe findings of the review indicated that several psychosocial, socio-economic, and ethno-cultural factors are linked to the transmission and control of COVID-19. The research revealed that stigma and related psychosocial challenges and others, such as anxiety, fear, and stigma-driven social isolation, have resulted in significant mental health problems.DiscussionThe review underscores the negative impact of stigma on COVID-19 patients, survivors, and the general population. Addressing stigma and psychosocial challenges is crucial to effectively manage the current pandemic and to prevent similar challenges during future public health crises

Family Matters:Rethinking the Psychology of Human Social Motivation

What motives do people prioritize in their social lives? Historically, social psychologists, especially those adopting an evolutionary perspective, have devoted a great deal of research attention to sexual attraction and romantic-partner choice (mate seeking). Research on long-term familial bonds (mate retention and kin care) has been less thoroughly connected to relevant comparative and evolutionary work on other species, and in the case of kin care, these bonds have been less well researched. Examining varied sources of data from 27 societies around the world, we found that people generally view familial motives as primary in importance and mate-seeking motives as relatively low in importance. Compared with other groups, college students, single people, and men place relatively higher emphasis on mate seeking, but even those samples rated kin-care motives as more important. Furthermore, motives linked to long-term familial bonds are positively associated with psychological well-being, but mate-seeking motives are associated with anxiety and depression. We address theoretical and empirical reasons why there has been extensive research on mate seeking and why people prioritize goals related to long-term familial bonds over mating goals. Reallocating relatively greater research effort toward long-term familial relationships would likely yield many interesting new findings relevant to everyday people’s highest social priorities

Fundamental social motives measured across forty-two cultures in two waves

How does psychology vary across human societies? The fundamental social motives framework adopts an evolutionary approach to capture the broad range of human social goals within a taxonomy of ancestrally recurring threats and opportunities. These motives—self-protection, disease avoidance, affiliation, status, mate acquisition, mate retention, and kin care—are high in fitness relevance and everyday salience, yet understudied cross-culturally. Here, we gathered data on these motives in 42 countries (N = 15,915) in two cross-sectional waves, including 19 countries (N = 10,907) for which datawere gathered in both waves. Wave 1 was collected from mid-2016 through late 2019 (32 countries, N = 8,998; 3,302 male, 5,585 female; Mage = 24.43, SD = 7.91). Wave 2 was collected from April through November 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic (29 countries, N = 6,917; 2,249 male, 4,218 female; Mage = 28.59, SD = 11.31). These data can be used to assess differences and similarities in people’s fundamental social motives both across and within cultures, at different time points, and in relation to other commonly studied cultural indicators and outcomes

Global, regional, and national burden of stroke and its risk factors, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Background Regularly updated data on stroke and its pathological types, including data on their incidence, prevalence, mortality, disability, risk factors, and epidemiological trends, are important for evidence-based stroke care planning and resource allocation. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) aims to provide a standardised and comprehensive measurement of these metrics at global, regional, and national levels. Methods We applied GBD 2019 analytical tools to calculate stroke incidence, prevalence, mortality, disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and the population attributable fraction (PAF) of DALYs (with corresponding 95% uncertainty intervals [UIs]) associated with 19 risk factors, for 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2019. These estimates were provided for ischaemic stroke, intracerebral haemorrhage, subarachnoid haemorrhage, and all strokes combined, and stratified by sex, age group, and World Bank country income level. Findings In 2019, there were 12·2 million (95% UI 11·0–13·6) incident cases of stroke, 101 million (93·2–111) prevalent cases of stroke, 143 million (133–153) DALYs due to stroke, and 6·55 million (6·00–7·02) deaths from stroke. Globally, stroke remained the second-leading cause of death (11·6% [10·8–12·2] of total deaths) and the third-leading cause of death and disability combined (5·7% [5·1–6·2] of total DALYs) in 2019. From 1990 to 2019, the absolute number of incident strokes increased by 70·0% (67·0–73·0), prevalent strokes increased by 85·0% (83·0–88·0), deaths from stroke increased by 43·0% (31·0–55·0), and DALYs due to stroke increased by 32·0% (22·0–42·0). During the same period, age-standardised rates of stroke incidence decreased by 17·0% (15·0–18·0), mortality decreased by 36·0% (31·0–42·0), prevalence decreased by 6·0% (5·0–7·0), and DALYs decreased by 36·0% (31·0–42·0). However, among people younger than 70 years, prevalence rates increased by 22·0% (21·0–24·0) and incidence rates increased by 15·0% (12·0–18·0). In 2019, the age-standardised stroke-related mortality rate was 3·6 (3·5–3·8) times higher in the World Bank low-income group than in the World Bank high-income group, and the age-standardised stroke-related DALY rate was 3·7 (3·5–3·9) times higher in the low-income group than the high-income group. Ischaemic stroke constituted 62·4% of all incident strokes in 2019 (7·63 million [6·57–8·96]), while intracerebral haemorrhage constituted 27·9% (3·41 million [2·97–3·91]) and subarachnoid haemorrhage constituted 9·7% (1·18 million [1·01–1·39]). In 2019, the five leading risk factors for stroke were high systolic blood pressure (contributing to 79·6 million [67·7–90·8] DALYs or 55·5% [48·2–62·0] of total stroke DALYs), high body-mass index (34·9 million [22·3–48·6] DALYs or 24·3% [15·7–33·2]), high fasting plasma glucose (28·9 million [19·8–41·5] DALYs or 20·2% [13·8–29·1]), ambient particulate matter pollution (28·7 million [23·4–33·4] DALYs or 20·1% [16·6–23·0]), and smoking (25·3 million [22·6–28·2] DALYs or 17·6% [16·4–19·0]). Interpretation The annual number of strokes and deaths due to stroke increased substantially from 1990 to 2019, despite substantial reductions in age-standardised rates, particularly among people older than 70 years. The highest age-standardised stroke-related mortality and DALY rates were in the World Bank low-income group. The fastest-growing risk factor for stroke between 1990 and 2019 was high body-mass index. Without urgent implementation of effective primary prevention strategies, the stroke burden will probably continue to grow across the world, particularly in low-income countries.publishedVersio

Burden of injury along the development spectrum : associations between the Socio-demographic Index and disability-adjusted life year estimates from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

Background The epidemiological transition of non-communicable diseases replacing infectious diseases as the main contributors to disease burden has been well documented in global health literature. Less focus, however, has been given to the relationship between sociodemographic changes and injury. The aim of this study was to examine the association between disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) from injury for 195 countries and territories at different levels along the development spectrum between 1990 and 2017 based on the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 estimates. Methods Injury mortality was estimated using the GBD mortality database, corrections for garbage coding and CODEm-the cause of death ensemble modelling tool. Morbidity estimation was based on surveys and inpatient and outpatient data sets for 30 cause-of-injury with 47 nature-of-injury categories each. The Socio-demographic Index (SDI) is a composite indicator that includes lagged income per capita, average educational attainment over age 15 years and total fertility rate. Results For many causes of injury, age-standardised DALY rates declined with increasing SDI, although road injury, interpersonal violence and self-harm did not follow this pattern. Particularly for self-harm opposing patterns were observed in regions with similar SDI levels. For road injuries, this effect was less pronounced. Conclusions The overall global pattern is that of declining injury burden with increasing SDI. However, not all injuries follow this pattern, which suggests multiple underlying mechanisms influencing injury DALYs. There is a need for a detailed understanding of these patterns to help to inform national and global efforts to address injury-related health outcomes across the development spectrum.Peer reviewe

Mapping 123 million neonatal, infant and child deaths between 2000 and 2017

Since 2000, many countries have achieved considerable success in improving child survival, but localized progress remains unclear. To inform efforts towards United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 3.2—to end preventable child deaths by 2030—we need consistently estimated data at the subnational level regarding child mortality rates and trends. Here we quantified, for the period 2000–2017, the subnational variation in mortality rates and number of deaths of neonates, infants and children under 5 years of age within 99 low- and middle-income countries using a geostatistical survival model. We estimated that 32% of children under 5 in these countries lived in districts that had attained rates of 25 or fewer child deaths per 1,000 live births by 2017, and that 58% of child deaths between 2000 and 2017 in these countries could have been averted in the absence of geographical inequality. This study enables the identification of high-mortality clusters, patterns of progress and geographical inequalities to inform appropriate investments and implementations that will help to improve the health of all populations

Estimating global injuries morbidity and mortality : methods and data used in the Global Burden of Disease 2017 study

Background: While there is a long history of measuring death and disability from injuries, modern research methods must account for the wide spectrum of disability that can occur in an injury, and must provide estimates with sufficient demographic, geographical and temporal detail to be useful for policy makers. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 study used methods to provide highly detailed estimates of global injury burden that meet these criteria. Methods: In this study, we report and discuss the methods used in GBD 2017 for injury morbidity and mortality burden estimation. In summary, these methods included estimating cause-specific mortality for every cause of injury, and then estimating incidence for every cause of injury. Non-fatal disability for each cause is then calculated based on the probabilities of suffering from different types of bodily injury experienced. Results: GBD 2017 produced morbidity and mortality estimates for 38 causes of injury. Estimates were produced in terms of incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability, cause-specific mortality, years of life lost and disability-adjusted life-years for a 28-year period for 22 age groups, 195 countries and both sexes. Conclusions: GBD 2017 demonstrated a complex and sophisticated series of analytical steps using the largest known database of morbidity and mortality data on injuries. GBD 2017 results should be used to help inform injury prevention policy making and resource allocation. We also identify important avenues for improving injury burden estimation in the future

Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders, 1990–2016 : a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

Background: Neurological disorders are increasingly recognised as major causes of death and disability worldwide. The aim of this analysis from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2016 is to provide the most comprehensive and up-to-date estimates of the global, regional, and national burden from neurological disorders. Methods: We estimated prevalence, incidence, deaths, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs; the sum of years of life lost [YLLs] and years lived with disability [YLDs]) by age and sex for 15 neurological disorder categories (tetanus, meningitis, encephalitis, stroke, brain and other CNS cancers, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron diseases, idiopathic epilepsy, migraine, tension-type headache, and a residual category for other less common neurological disorders) in 195 countries from 1990 to 2016. DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression tool, was the main method of estimation of prevalence and incidence, and the Cause of Death Ensemble model (CODEm) was used for mortality estimation. We quantified the contribution of 84 risks and combinations of risk to the disease estimates for the 15 neurological disorder categories using the GBD comparative risk assessment approach. Findings: Globally, in 2016, neurological disorders were the leading cause of DALYs (276 million [95% UI 247–308]) and second leading cause of deaths (9·0 million [8·8–9·4]). The absolute number of deaths and DALYs from all neurological disorders combined increased (deaths by 39% [34–44] and DALYs by 15% [9–21]) whereas their age-standardised rates decreased (deaths by 28% [26–30] and DALYs by 27% [24–31]) between 1990 and 2016. The only neurological disorders that had a decrease in rates and absolute numbers of deaths and DALYs were tetanus, meningitis, and encephalitis. The four largest contributors of neurological DALYs were stroke (42·2% [38·6–46·1]), migraine (16·3% [11·7–20·8]), Alzheimer's and other dementias (10·4% [9·0–12·1]), and meningitis (7·9% [6·6–10·4]). For the combined neurological disorders, age-standardised DALY rates were significantly higher in males than in females (male-to-female ratio 1·12 [1·05–1·20]), but migraine, multiple sclerosis, and tension-type headache were more common and caused more burden in females, with male-to-female ratios of less than 0·7. The 84 risks quantified in GBD explain less than 10% of neurological disorder DALY burdens, except stroke, for which 88·8% (86·5–90·9) of DALYs are attributable to risk factors, and to a lesser extent Alzheimer's disease and other dementias (22·3% [11·8–35·1] of DALYs are risk attributable) and idiopathic epilepsy (14·1% [10·8–17·5] of DALYs are risk attributable). Interpretation: Globally, the burden of neurological disorders, as measured by the absolute number of DALYs, continues to increase. As populations are growing and ageing, and the prevalence of major disabling neurological disorders steeply increases with age, governments will face increasing demand for treatment, rehabilitation, and support services for neurological disorders. The scarcity of established modifiable risks for most of the neurological burden demonstrates that new knowledge is required to develop effective prevention and treatment strategies. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation