Biomimetic Based EEG Learning for Robotics Complex Grasping and Dexterous Manipulation

There have been tremendous efforts to understand the biological nature of human grasping, in such a way that it can be learned and copied to prosthesis–robotics and dextrous grasping applications. Several biomimetic methods and techniques have been adopted, hence applied to analytically comprehend ways human performs grasping to duplicate human knowledge. A major topic for further study, is related to decoding the resulting EEG brainwaves during motorizing of fingers and moving parts. To accomplish this, there are a number of phases that are performed, including recording, pre-processing, filtration, and understanding of the waves. However, there are two important phases that have received substantial research attentions. The classification and decoding, of such massive and complex brain waves, as they are two important steps towards understanding patterns during grasping. In this respect, the fundamental objective of this research is to demonstrate how to employ advanced pattern recognition methods, like fuzzy c-mean clustering for understanding resulting EEG brain waves, in such a way to control a prosthesis or robotic hand, while relying sets of detected EEG brainwaves. There are a number of decoding and classification methods and techniques, however we shall look into fuzzy based clustering blended with principle component analysis (PAC) technique to help for the decoding mechanism. EEG brainwaves during a grasping and manipulation have been used for this analysis. This involves, movement of almost five fingers during a grasping defined task. The study has found that, it is not a straight forward task to decode all human fingers motions, as due to the complexity of grasping tasks. However, the adopted analysis was able to classify and identify the different narrowly performed and related fundamental events during a simple grasping task

Reactogenicity and immunogenicity after a late second dose or a third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in the UK: a substudy of two randomised controlled trials (COV001 and COV002)

Background COVID-19 vaccine supply shortages are causing concerns about compromised immunity in some countries as the interval between the first and second dose becomes longer. Conversely, countries with no supply constraints are considering administering a third dose. We assessed the persistence of immunogenicity after a single dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222), immunity after an extended interval (44–45 weeks) between the first and second dose, and response to a third dose as a booster given 28–38 weeks after the second dose. Methods In this substudy, volunteers aged 18–55 years who were enrolled in the phase 1/2 (COV001) controlled trial in the UK and had received either a single dose or two doses of 5 × 1010 viral particles were invited back for vaccination. Here we report the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of a delayed second dose (44–45 weeks after first dose) or a third dose of the vaccine (28–38 weeks after second dose). Data from volunteers aged 18–55 years who were enrolled in either the phase 1/2 (COV001) or phase 2/3 (COV002), single-blinded, randomised controlled trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and who had previously received a single dose or two doses of 5 × 1010 viral particles are used for comparison purposes. COV001 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, and ISRCTN, 15281137, and COV002 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and ISRCTN, 15281137, and both are continuing but not recruiting. Findings Between March 11 and 21, 2021, 90 participants were enrolled in the third-dose boost substudy, of whom 80 (89%) were assessable for reactogenicity, 75 (83%) were assessable for evaluation of antibodies, and 15 (17%) were assessable for T-cells responses. The two-dose cohort comprised 321 participants who had reactogenicity data (with prime-boost interval of 8–12 weeks: 267 [83%] of 321; 15–25 weeks: 24 [7%]; or 44–45 weeks: 30 [9%]) and 261 who had immunogenicity data (interval of 8–12 weeks: 115 [44%] of 261; 15–25 weeks: 116 [44%]; and 44–45 weeks: 30 [11%]). 480 participants from the single-dose cohort were assessable for immunogenicity up to 44–45 weeks after vaccination. Antibody titres after a single dose measured approximately 320 days after vaccination remained higher than the titres measured at baseline (geometric mean titre of 66·00 ELISA units [EUs; 95% CI 47·83–91·08] vs 1·75 EUs [1·60–1·93]). 32 participants received a late second dose of vaccine 44–45 weeks after the first dose, of whom 30 were included in immunogenicity and reactogenicity analyses. Antibody titres were higher 28 days after vaccination in those with a longer interval between first and second dose than for those with a short interval (median total IgG titre: 923 EUs [IQR 525–1764] with an 8–12 week interval; 1860 EUs [917–4934] with a 15–25 week interval; and 3738 EUs [1824–6625] with a 44–45 week interval). Among participants who received a third dose of vaccine, antibody titres (measured in 73 [81%] participants for whom samples were available) were significantly higher 28 days after a third dose (median total IgG titre: 3746 EUs [IQR 2047–6420]) than 28 days after a second dose (median 1792 EUs [IQR 899–4634]; Wilcoxon signed rank test p=0·0043). T-cell responses were also boosted after a third dose (median response increased from 200 spot forming units [SFUs] per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells [PBMCs; IQR 127–389] immediately before the third dose to 399 SFUs per milion PBMCs [314–662] by day 28 after the third dose; Wilcoxon signed rank test p=0·012). Reactogenicity after a late second dose or a third dose was lower than reactogenicity after a first dose. Interpretation An extended interval before the second dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 leads to increased antibody titres. A third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 induces antibodies to a level that correlates with high efficacy after second dose and boosts T-cell responses. Funding UK Research and Innovation, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Science, Thames Valley and South Midlands NIHR Clinical Research Network, AstraZeneca, and Wellcome

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Cellulose and its derivatives: towards biomedical applications

© 2021, The Author(s).Cellulose is the most abundant polysaccharide on Earth. It can be obtained from a vast number of sources, e.g. cell walls of wood and plants, some species of bacteria, and algae, as well as tunicates, which are the only known cellulose-containing animals. This inherent abundance naturally paves the way for discovering new applications for this versatile material. This review provides an extensive survey on cellulose and its derivatives, their structural and biochemical properties, with an overview of applications in tissue engineering, wound dressing, and drug delivery systems. Based on the available means of selecting the physical features, dimensions, and shapes, cellulose exists in the morphological forms of fiber, microfibril/nanofibril, and micro/nanocrystalline cellulose. These different cellulosic particle types arise due to the inherent diversity among the source of organic materials or due to the specific conditions of biosynthesis and processing that determine the consequent geometry and dimension of cellulosic particles. These different cellulosic particles, as building blocks, produce materials of different microstructures and properties, which are needed for numerous biomedical applications. Despite having great potential for applications in various fields, the extensive use of cellulose has been mainly limited to industrial use, with less early interest towards the biomedical field. Therefore, this review highlights recent developments in the preparation methods of cellulose and its derivatives that create novel properties benefiting appropriate biomedical applications

3D-printed poly(Ɛ-caprolactone) scaffold with gradient mechanical properties according to force distribution in the mandible for mandibular bone tissue engineering

In bone tissue engineering, prediction of forces induced to the native bone during normal functioning is important in the design, fabrication, and integration of a scaffold with the host. The aim of this study was to customize the mechanical properties of a layer-by-layer 3D-printed poly(ϵ-caprolactone) (PCL) scaffold estimated by finite element (FE) modeling in order to match the requirements of the defect, to prevent mechanical failure, and ensure optimal integration with the surrounding tissue. Forces and torques induced on the mandibular symphysis during jaw opening and closing were predicted by FE modeling. Based on the predicted forces, homogeneous-structured PCL scaffolds with 3 different void sizes (0.3, 0.6, and 0.9 mm) were designed and 3D-printed using an extrusion based 3D-bioprinter. In addition, 2 gradient-structured scaffolds were designed and 3D-printed. The first gradient scaffold contained 2 regions (0.3 mm and 0.6 mm void size in the upper and lower half, respectively), whereas the second gradient scaffold contained 3 regions (void sizes of 0.3, 0.6, and 0.9 mm in the upper, middle and lower third, respectively). Scaffolds were tested for their compressive and tensile strength in the upper and lower halves. The actual void size of the homogeneous scaffolds with designed void size of 0.3, 0.6, and 0.9 mm was 0.20, 0.59, and 0.95 mm, respectively. FE modeling showed that during opening and closing of the jaw, the highest force induced on the symphysis was a compressive force in the transverse direction. The compressive force was induced throughout the symphyseal line and reduced from top (362.5 N, compressive force) to bottom (107.5 N, tensile force) of the symphysis. Compressive and tensile strength of homogeneous scaffolds decreased by 1.4-fold to 3-fold with increasing scaffold void size. Both gradient scaffolds had higher compressive strength in the upper half (2 region-gradient scaffold: 4.9 MPa; 3 region-gradient scaffold: 4.1 MPa) compared with the lower half (2 region-gradient scaffold: 2.5 MPa; 3 region-gradient scaffold: 2.7 MPa) of the scaffold. 3D-printed PCL scaffolds had higher compressive strength in the scaffold layer-by-layer building direction compared with the side direction, and a very low tensile strength in the scaffold layer-by-layer building direction. Fluid shear stress and fluid pressure distribution in the gradient scaffolds were more homogeneous than in the 0.3 mm void size scaffold and similar to the 0.6 mm and 0.9 mm void size scaffolds. In conclusion, these data show that the mechanical properties of 3D-printed PCL scaffolds can be tailored based on the predicted forces on the mandibular symphysis. These 3D-printed PCL scaffolds had different mechanical properties in scaffold building direction compared with the side direction, which should be taken into account when placing the scaffold in the defect site. Our findings might have implications for improved performance and integration of scaffolds with native tissue

Inlet flow rate of perfusion bioreactors affects fluid flow dynamics, but not oxygen concentration in 3D-printed scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: Computational analysis and experimental validation

Fluid flow dynamics and oxygen-concentration in 3D-printed scaffolds within perfusion bioreactors are sensitive to controllable bioreactor parameters such as inlet flow rate. Here we aimed to determine fluid flow dynamics, oxygen-concentration, and cell proliferation and distribution in 3D-printed scaffolds as a result of different inlet flow rates of perfusion bioreactors using experiments and finite element modeling. Pre-osteoblasts were treated with 1 h pulsating fluid flow with low (0.8 Pa; PFFlow) or high peak shear stress (6.5 Pa; PFFhigh), and nitric oxide (NO) production was measured to validate shear stress sensitivity. Computational analysis was performed to determine fluid flow between 3D-scaffold-strands at three inlet flow rates (0.02, 0.1, 0.5 ml/min) during 5 days. MC3T3-E1 pre-osteoblast proliferation, matrix production, and oxygen-consumption in response to fluid flow in 3D-printed scaffolds inside a perfusion bioreactor were experimentally assessed. PFFhigh more strongly stimulated NO production by pre-osteoblasts than PFFlow. 3D-simulation demonstrated that dependent on inlet flow rate, fluid velocity reached a maximum (50–1200 μm/s) between scaffold-strands, and fluid shear stress (0.5–4 mPa) and wall shear stress (0.5–20 mPa) on scaffold-strands surfaces. At all inlet flow rates, gauge fluid pressure and oxygen-concentration were similar. The simulated cell proliferation and distribution, and oxygen-concentration data were in good agreement with the experimental results. In conclusion, varying a perfusion bioreactor's inlet flow rate locally affects fluid velocity, fluid shear stress, and wall shear stress inside 3D-printed scaffolds, but not gauge fluid pressure, and oxygen-concentration, which seems crucial for optimized bone tissue engineering strategies using bioreactors, scaffolds, and cells

PD.011 Lack of prognostic significance of myeloid antigen co-expression in children with precursor B acute lymphoblastic leukemia

The clinical significance of myeloid antigen co-expression (My Ag+) in childhood acute lymphoblast leukemia (ALL) has remained controversial. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the incidence of My Ag+ co-expression and its prognostic significance in children with precursor B-ALL in our patient population.Patients and Methods: Medical records of 340 pediatric (\u3e1 to patients diagnosed with precursor B-ALL and treated at our institution between January 1999 and December 2004 was retrospectively reviewed. Patients were treated on risk-adjusted treatment protocols. The immunophenotype data were reviewed and recorded according to the European group for immunologic classification of leukemia (EGIL)to identify the subset of patients with My Ag+.Result: Out of 340 patients with precursor B-ALL, 61 (17.94%) patients were found to have My Ag+. In univariate analysis, age, gender, and CNS involvement at diagnosis of My Ag+ group were comparable to their counterparts of My Ag-group. Induction remission was achieved in 99.2% and 100% of My Ag- and My Ag+ group respectively. 59 of 269(21.1%) and 15 of 57(26%) patients at risk relapsed at a median time of 15.2 and 18.2 months from the induction remission in the My Ag- and My Ag+ group respectively. The 5-year overall and event -free survival were 87.46% and 74%(p=0.6) in My Ag- and 85.25%and 72% (p=0.9) in My Ag+ group respectively. Similar treatment outcome was observed when My Ag+/My Ag-patients were compared across the standard, high, and poor risk group categories with a 5 year-EFS of 84.9 and 84.6, p=0.9 within the standard group, 75.5 and 69.05, p=0.85 within the high risk group and 44 and 50, p=0.84 within the poor risk group for My Ag-and My Ag+ patients respectively. In multivariate analysis of the whole group, the co-expression of myeloid antigens was not found to have any prognostic significance. Thus My +Ag and My-Ag childhood precursor B-ALL have similar treatment outcome across the different risk groups