A COMMUNICATION FRAMEWORK FOR MULTIHOP WIRELESS ACCESS AND SENSOR NETWORKS: ANYCAST ROUTING & SIMULATION TOOLS

The reliance on wireless networks has grown tremendously within a number of varied application domains, prompting an evolution towards the use of heterogeneous multihop network architectures. We propose and analyze two communication frameworks for such networks. A first framework is designed for communications within multihop wireless access networks. The framework supports dynamic algorithms for locating access points using anycast routing with multiple metrics and balancing network load. The evaluation shows significant performance improvement over traditional solutions. A second framework is designed for communication within sensor networks and includes lightweight versions of our algorithms to fit the limitations of sensor networks. Analysis shows that this stripped down version can work almost equally well if tailored to the needs of a sensor network. We have also developed an extensive simulation environment using NS-2 to test realistic situations for the evaluations of our work. Our tools support analysis of realistic scenarios including the spreading of a forest fire within an area, and can easily be ported to other simulation software. Lastly, we us our algorithms and simulation environment to investigate sink movements optimization within sensor networks. Based on these results, we propose strategies, to be addressed in follow-on work, for building topology maps and finding optimal data collection points. Altogether, the communication framework and realistic simulation tools provide a complete communication and evaluation solution for access and sensor networks

Epidemiology and Clinical Impact of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus at King Abdulaziz University Hospital (2015–2022): Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Mortality

Jawahir A Mokhtar,1– 3 Dalya Attallah,2 Mohammed W Al-Rabia,1 Mona Abdulrahman Alqarni,1 Khalil K Alkuwaity,3,4 Yousef Almoghrabi,5,6 Hussam Daghistani,5,6 Mazen A Ismail,7 Asim T Sharif,7 Bayan Redwan,7 Alyaa M Ajabnoor,8 Ohood S Alharbi,9 Ibrahim Mohammed Abu,10 Wafaa Alhazmi,4 Mohammed Mufrrih,4,11 Ahmad M Sait,4,6 Abdelbagi Alfadil,1,12 Yassir Daghistani,13 Hattan Jamal Momin,14 Karem Ibrahem1,2 1Department of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; 2Department of Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, 21589, Saudi Arabia; 3Vaccines and Immunotherapy Unit, King Fahd Medical Research Center, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, 21589, Saudi Arabia; 4Department of Medical Laboratory Sciences, Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, 21589, Saudi Arabia; 5Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, 21589, Saudi Arabia; 6Regenerative Medicine Unit, King Fahd Medical Research Center, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, 21589, Saudi Arabia; 7Department of Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, 21589, Saudi Arabia; 8Department of pharmacy practice, Faculty of pharmacy, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; 9Department of Microbiology and Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia; 10Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, 21589, Saudi Arabia; 11Special Infectious Agents Unit BSL-3, King Fahd Medical Research Center, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; 12Centre of Research Excellence for Drug Research and Pharmaceutical Industries, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; 13Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; 14Medical Service Center, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, 21589, Saudi ArabiaCorrespondence: Karem Ibrahem, Department of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, P.O. Box 80205, Jeddah, 21589, Saudi Arabia, Tel +966562525685, Email [email protected]: Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium are part of the human microbiota but pose significant risks in clinical settings due to increasing antimicrobial resistance. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) are a growing concern, linked to high morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients.Aim: This study is the first comprehensive investigation of VRE prevalence and associated risk factors at King Abdulaziz University Hospital (KAUH) from 2015 to 2022.Methods: Clinical samples were collected, and VRE isolates were identified using VRE Card GeneXpert, BioFire PCR, and the VITEK 2 system. Descriptive statistical analysis with Stata version 17 summarized patient characteristics, including demographics, comorbidities, hospital exposure, and laboratory findings. Categorical variables were reported as frequencies/percentages, while continuous variables were expressed as mean ± SD or median [IQR].Results: Among 254 adult patients with VRE infections, the median age was 61 years. The most common comorbidities were diabetes, hypertension, and kidney disease. VRE infections peaked in 2021, with urine cultures being the most frequent source. Most patients had prior antibiotic exposure, particularly to vancomycin and carbapenems. Enterococcus faecium was the predominant species, with the VanA phenotype being most common. Alarmingly, 61.8% of VRE-infected patients died during the study period.Conclusion: These findings underscore the critical need for enhanced infection control measures and antimicrobial stewardship to combat VRE and improve patient outcomes.Keywords: vancomycin-resistant enterococci, AMR, mortality, risk factors, hospital infection

Mortality, morbidity, and hospitalisations due to influenza lower respiratory tract infections, 2017: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

Background Although the burden of influenza is often discussed in the context of historical pandemics and the threat of future pandemics, every year a substantial burden of lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) and other respiratory conditions (like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) are attributable to seasonal influenza. The Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) 2017 is a systematic scientific effort to quantify the health loss associated with a comprehensive set of diseases and disabilities. In this Article, we focus on LRTIs that can be attributed to influenza.Methods We modelled the LRTI incidence, hospitalisations, and mortality attributable to influenza for every country and selected subnational locations by age and year from 1990 to 2017 as part of GBD 2017. We used a counterfactual approach that first estimated the LRTI incidence, hospitalisations, and mortality and then attributed a fraction of those outcomes to influenza.Findings Influenza LRTI was responsible for an estimated 145 000 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 99 000–200 000) deaths among all ages in 2017. The influenza LRTI mortality rate was highest among adults older than 70 years (16·4 deaths per 100 000 [95% UI 11·6–21·9]), and the highest rate among all ages was in eastern Europe (5·2 per 100 000 population [95% UI 3·5–7·2]). We estimated that influenza LRTIs accounted for 9 459 000 (95% UI 3 709 000–22 935 000) hospitalisations due to LRTIs and 81 536 000 hospital days (24 330 000–259 851 000). We estimated that 11·5% (95% UI 10·0–12·9) of LRTI episodes were attributable to influenza, corresponding to 54 481 000 (38 465 000–73 864 000) episodes and 8 172 000 severe episodes (5 000 000–13 296 000).Interpretation This comprehensive assessment of the burden of influenza LRTIs shows the substantial annual effect of influenza on global health. Although preparedness planning will be important for potential pandemics, health loss due to seasonal influenza LRTIs should not be overlooked, and vaccine use should be considered. Efforts to improve influenza prevention measures are neede

Global, Regional, and National Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived With Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life-Years for 29 Cancer Groups, 1990 to 2016 A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study

IMPORTANCE: The increasing burden due to cancer and other noncommunicable diseases poses a threat to human development, which has resulted in global political commitments reflected in the Sustainable Development Goals as well as the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Action Plan on Non-Communicable Diseases. To determine if these commitments have resulted in improved cancer control, quantitative assessments of the cancer burden are required. OBJECTIVE: To assess the burden for 29 cancer groups over time to provide a framework for policy discussion, resource allocation, and research focus. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) were evaluated for 195 countries and territories by age and sex using the Global Burden of Disease study estimation methods. Levels and trends were analyzed over time, as well as by the Sociodemographic Index (SDI). Changes in incident cases were categorized by changes due to epidemiological vs demographic transition. FINDINGS: In 2016, there were 17.2 million cancer cases worldwide and 8.9 million deaths. Cancer cases increased by 28% between 2006 and 2016. The smallest increase was seen in high SDI countries. Globally, population aging contributed 17%; population growth, 12%; and changes in age-specific rates, −1% to this change. The most common incident cancer globally for men was prostate cancer (1.4 million cases). The leading cause of cancer deaths and DALYs was tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer (1.2 million deaths and 25.4 million DALYs). For women, the most common incident cancer and the leading cause of cancer deaths and DALYs was breast cancer (1.7 million incident cases, 535 000 deaths, and 14.9 million DALYs). In 2016, cancer caused 213.2 million DALYs globally for both sexes combined. Between 2006 and 2016, the average annual age-standardized incidence rates for all cancers combined increased in 130 of 195 countries or territories, and the average annual age-standardized death rates decreased within that timeframe in 143 of 195 countries or territories. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Large disparities exist between countries in cancer incidence, deaths, and associated disability. Scaling up cancer prevention and ensuring universal access to cancer care are required for health equity and to fulfill the global commitments for noncommunicable disease and cancer control

The supernatural characters and powers of sacred trees in the Holy Land

This article surveys the beliefs concerning the supernatural characteristics and powers of sacred trees in Israel; it is based on a field study as well as a survey of the literature and includes 118 interviews with Muslims and Druze. Both the Muslims and Druze in this study attribute supernatural dimensions to sacred trees which are directly related to ancient, deep-rooted pagan traditions. The Muslims attribute similar divine powers to sacred trees as they do to the graves of their saints; the graves and the trees are both considered to be the abode of the soul of a saint which is the source of their miraculous powers. Any violation of a sacred tree would be strictly punished while leaving the opportunity for atonement and forgiveness. The Druze, who believe in the transmigration of souls, have similar traditions concerning sacred trees but with a different religious background. In polytheistic religions the sacred grove/forest is a centre of the community's official worship; any violation of the trees is regarded as a threat to the well being of the community. Punishments may thus be collective. In the monotheistic world (including Christianity, Islam and Druze) the pagan worship of trees was converted into the worship/adoration of saints/prophets; it is not a part of the official religion but rather a personal act and the punishments are exerted only on the violating individual

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

Neuropsychiatric manifestations and sleep disturbances with dolutegravir-based antiretroviral therapy versus standard of care in children and adolescents: a secondary analysis of the ODYSSEY trial

BACKGROUND: Cohort studies in adults with HIV showed that dolutegravir was associated with neuropsychiatric adverse events and sleep problems, yet data are scarce in children and adolescents. We aimed to evaluate neuropsychiatric manifestations in children and adolescents treated with dolutegravir-based treatment versus alternative antiretroviral therapy. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of ODYSSEY, an open-label, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial, in which adolescents and children initiating first-line or second-line antiretroviral therapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to dolutegravir-based treatment or standard-of-care treatment. We assessed neuropsychiatric adverse events (reported by clinicians) and responses to the mood and sleep questionnaires (reported by the participant or their carer) in both groups. We compared the proportions of patients with neuropsychiatric adverse events (neurological, psychiatric, and total), time to first neuropsychiatric adverse event, and participant-reported responses to questionnaires capturing issues with mood, suicidal thoughts, and sleep problems. FINDINGS: Between Sept 20, 2016, and June 22, 2018, 707 participants were enrolled, of whom 345 (49%) were female and 362 (51%) were male, and 623 (88%) were Black-African. Of 707 participants, 350 (50%) were randomly assigned to dolutegravir-based antiretroviral therapy and 357 (50%) to non-dolutegravir-based standard-of-care. 311 (44%) of 707 participants started first-line antiretroviral therapy (ODYSSEY-A; 145 [92%] of 157 participants had efavirenz-based therapy in the standard-of-care group), and 396 (56%) of 707 started second-line therapy (ODYSSEY-B; 195 [98%] of 200 had protease inhibitor-based therapy in the standard-of-care group). During follow-up (median 142 weeks, IQR 124–159), 23 participants had 31 neuropsychiatric adverse events (15 in the dolutegravir group and eight in the standard-of-care group; difference in proportion of participants with ≥1 event p=0·13). 11 participants had one or more neurological events (six and five; p=0·74) and 14 participants had one or more psychiatric events (ten and four; p=0·097). Among 14 participants with psychiatric events, eight participants in the dolutegravir group and four in standard-of-care group had suicidal ideation or behaviour. More participants in the dolutegravir group than the standard-of-care group reported symptoms of self-harm (eight vs one; p=0·025), life not worth living (17 vs five; p=0·0091), or suicidal thoughts (13 vs none; p=0·0006) at one or more follow-up visits. Most reports were transient. There were no differences by treatment group in low mood or feeling sad, problems concentrating, feeling worried or feeling angry or aggressive, sleep problems, or sleep quality. INTERPRETATION: The numbers of neuropsychiatric adverse events and reported neuropsychiatric symptoms were low. However, numerically more participants had psychiatric events and reported suicidality ideation in the dolutegravir group than the standard-of-care group. These differences should be interpreted with caution in an open-label trial. Clinicians and policy makers should consider including suicidality screening of children or adolescents receiving dolutegravir