Design and Reliability Performance Evaluation of Network Coding Schemes for Lossy Wireless Networks

This thesis investigates lossy wireless networks, which are wireless communication networks consisting of lossy wireless links, where the packet transmission via a lossy wireless link is successful with a certain value of probability. In particular, this thesis analyses all-to-all broadcast in lossy wireless networks, where every node has a native packet to transmit to all other nodes in the network. A challenge of all-to-all broadcast in lossy wireless networks is the reliability, which is defined as the probability that every node in the network successfully obtains a copy of the native packets of all other nodes. In this thesis, two novel network coding schemes are proposed, which are the neighbour network coding scheme and the random neighbour network coding scheme. In the two proposed network coding schemes, a node may perform a bit-wise exclusive or (XOR) operation to combine the native packet of itself and the native packet of its neighbour, called the coding neighbour, into an XOR coded packet. The reliability of all-to-all broadcast under both the proposed network coding schemes is investigated analytically using Markov chains. It is shown that the reliability of all-to-all broadcast can be improved considerably by employing the proposed network coding schemes, compared with non-coded networks with the same link conditions, i.e. same probabilities of successful packet transmission via wireless channels. Further, the proposed schemes take the link conditions of each node into account to maximise the reliability of a given network. To be more precise, the first scheme proposes the optimal coding neighbour selection method while the second scheme introduces a tuning parameter to control the probability that a node performs network coding at each transmission. The observation that channel condition can have a significant impact on the performance of network coding schemes is expected to be applicable to other network coding schemes for lossy wireless networks

Trace elements in hemodialysis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Hemodialysis patients are at risk for deficiency of essential trace elements and excess of toxic trace elements, both of which can affect health. We conducted a systematic review to summarize existing literature on trace element status in hemodialysis patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>All studies which reported relevant data for chronic hemodialysis patients and a healthy control population were eligible, regardless of language or publication status. We included studies which measured at least one of the following elements in whole blood, serum, or plasma: antimony, arsenic, boron, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, fluorine, iodine, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, tellurium, thallium, vanadium, and zinc. We calculated differences between hemodialysis patients and controls using the differences in mean trace element level, divided by the pooled standard deviation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified 128 eligible studies. Available data suggested that levels of cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and vanadium were higher and that levels of selenium, zinc and manganese were lower in hemodialysis patients, compared with controls. Pooled standard mean differences exceeded 0.8 standard deviation units (a large difference) higher than controls for cadmium, chromium, vanadium, and lower than controls for selenium, zinc, and manganese. No studies reported data on antimony, iodine, tellurium, and thallium concentrations.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Average blood levels of biologically important trace elements were substantially different in hemodialysis patients, compared with healthy controls. Since both deficiency and excess of trace elements are potentially harmful yet amenable to therapy, the hypothesis that trace element status influences the risk of adverse clinical outcomes is worthy of investigation.</p

Determinants of recovery from post-COVID-19 dyspnoea: analysis of UK prospective cohorts of hospitalised COVID-19 patients and community-based controls

Background The risk factors for recovery from COVID-19 dyspnoea are poorly understood. We investigated determinants of recovery from dyspnoea in adults with COVID-19 and compared these to determinants of recovery from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea. Methods We used data from two prospective cohort studies: PHOSP-COVID (patients hospitalised between March 2020 and April 2021 with COVID-19) and COVIDENCE UK (community cohort studied over the same time period). PHOSP-COVID data were collected during hospitalisation and at 5-month and 1-year follow-up visits. COVIDENCE UK data were obtained through baseline and monthly online questionnaires. Dyspnoea was measured in both cohorts with the Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify determinants associated with a reduction in dyspnoea between 5-month and 1-year follow-up. Findings We included 990 PHOSP-COVID and 3309 COVIDENCE UK participants. We observed higher odds of improvement between 5-month and 1-year follow-up among PHOSP-COVID participants who were younger (odds ratio 1.02 per year, 95% CI 1.01–1.03), male (1.54, 1.16–2.04), neither obese nor severely obese (1.82, 1.06–3.13 and 4.19, 2.14–8.19, respectively), had no pre-existing anxiety or depression (1.56, 1.09–2.22) or cardiovascular disease (1.33, 1.00–1.79), and shorter hospital admission (1.01 per day, 1.00–1.02). Similar associations were found in those recovering from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea, excluding age (and length of hospital admission). Interpretation Factors associated with dyspnoea recovery at 1-year post-discharge among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were similar to those among community controls without COVID-19. Funding PHOSP-COVID is supported by a grant from the MRC-UK Research and Innovation and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) rapid response panel to tackle COVID-19. The views expressed in the publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. COVIDENCE UK is supported by the UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health Research, and Barts Charity. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders