4 research outputs found
Sketch-based interaction and modeling: where do we stand?
Sketching is a natural and intuitive communication tool used for expressing concepts or ideas which are difficult to communicate through text or speech alone. Sketching is therefore used for a variety of purposes, from the expression of ideas on two-dimensional (2D) physical media, to object creation, manipulation, or deformation in three-dimensional (3D) immersive environments. This variety in sketching activities brings about a range of technologies which, while having similar scope, namely that of recording and interpreting the sketch gesture to effect some interaction, adopt different interpretation approaches according to the environment in which the sketch is drawn. In fields such as product design, sketches are drawn at various stages of the design process, and therefore, designers would benefit from sketch interpretation technologies which support these differing interactions. However, research typically focuses on one aspect of sketch interpretation and modeling such that literature on available technologies is fragmented and dispersed. In this paper, we bring together the relevant literature describing technologies which can support the product design industry, namely technologies which support the interpretation of sketches drawn on 2D media, sketch-based search interactions, as well as sketch gestures drawn in 3D media. This paper, therefore, gives a holistic view of the algorithmic support that can be provided in the design process. In so doing, we highlight the research gaps and future research directions required to provide full sketch-based interaction support
An Anti-CD34 Antibody-Functionalized Clinical-Grade POSS-PCU Nanocomposite Polymer for Cardiovascular Stent Coating Applications: A Preliminary Assessment of Endothelial Progenitor Cell Capture and Hemocompatibility
Effect of Noninvasive Respiratory Strategies on Intubation or Mortality Among Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and COVID-19: The RECOVERY-RS Randomized Clinical Trial.
Importance
Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) have been recommended for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19. Uncertainty exists regarding the effectiveness and safety of these noninvasive respiratory strategies.
Objective
To determine whether either CPAP or HFNO, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.
Design, Setting, and Participants
A parallel group, adaptive, randomized clinical trial of 1273 hospitalized adults with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The trial was conducted between April 6, 2020, and May 3, 2021, across 48 acute care hospitals in the UK and Jersey. Final follow-up occurred on June 20, 2021.
Interventions
Adult patients were randomized to receive CPAP (n = 380), HFNO (n = 418), or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 475).
Main Outcomes and Measures
The primary outcome was a composite of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days.
Results
The trial was stopped prematurely due to declining COVID-19 case numbers in the UK and the end of the funded recruitment period. Of the 1273 randomized patients (mean age, 57.4 [95% CI, 56.7 to 58.1] years; 66% male; 65% White race), primary outcome data were available for 1260. Crossover between interventions occurred in 17.1% of participants (15.3% in the CPAP group, 11.5% in the HFNO group, and 23.6% in the conventional oxygen therapy group). The requirement for tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days was significantly lower with CPAP (36.3%; 137 of 377 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (44.4%; 158 of 356 participants) (absolute difference, -8% [95% CI, -15% to -1%], P = .03), but was not significantly different with HFNO (44.3%; 184 of 415 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (45.1%; 166 of 368 participants) (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -8% to 6%], P = .83). Adverse events occurred in 34.2% (130/380) of participants in the CPAP group, 20.6% (86/418) in the HFNO group, and 13.9% (66/475) in the conventional oxygen therapy group.
Conclusions and Relevance
Among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, an initial strategy of CPAP significantly reduced the risk of tracheal intubation or mortality compared with conventional oxygen therapy, but there was no significant difference between an initial strategy of HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy. The study may have been underpowered for the comparison of HFNO vs conventional oxygen therapy, and early study termination and crossover among the groups should be considered when interpreting the findings.
Trial Registration
isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16912075