A study and evaluation of image analysis techniques applied to remotely sensed data

An analysis of phenomena causing nonlinearities in the transformation from Landsat multispectral scanner coordinates to ground coordinates is presented. Experimental results comparing rms errors at ground control points indicated a slight improvement when a nonlinear (8-parameter) transformation was used instead of an affine (6-parameter) transformation. Using a preliminary ground truth map of a test site in Alabama covering the Mobile Bay area and six Landsat images of the same scene, several classification methods were assessed. A methodology was developed for automatic change detection using classification/cluster maps. A coding scheme was employed for generation of change depiction maps indicating specific types of changes. Inter- and intraseasonal data of the Mobile Bay test area were compared to illustrate the method. A beginning was made in the study of data compression by applying a Karhunen-Loeve transform technique to a small section of the test data set. The second part of the report provides a formal documentation of the several programs developed for the analysis and assessments presented

Classification software technique assessment

A catalog of software options is presented for the use of local user communities to obtain software for analyzing remotely sensed multispectral imagery. The resources required to utilize a particular software program are described. Descriptions of how a particular program analyzes data and the performance of that program for an application and data set provided by the user are shown. An effort is made to establish a statistical performance base for various software programs with regard to different data sets and analysis applications, to determine the status of the state-of-the-art

Fulminant hepatitis in a tropical population: clinical course, cause, and early predictors of outcome

The profiles of patients with fulminant hepatic failure (FHF) from developing countries have not been reported earlier. The current study was conducted prospectively, at a single tertiary care center in India, to document the demographic and clinical characteristics, natural course, and causative profile of patients with FHF as well as to define simple prognostic markers in these patients. Four hundred twenty-three consecutive patients with FHF admitted from January 1987 to June 1993 were included in the study. Each patient's serum was tested for various hepatotropic viruses. Univariate Cox's regression for 28 variables, multivariate Cox's proportional hazard regression, stepwise logistic regression, and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were done to identify independent predictors of outcome at admission. All patients presented with encephalopathy within 4 weeks of onset of symptoms. Hepatotropic viruses were the likely cause in most of these patients. Hepatitis A (HAV), hepatitis B (HBV), hepatitis D (HDV) viruses, and antitubercular drugs could be implicated as the cause of FHF in 1.7% (n = 7), 28% (n = 117), 3.8% (n = 16), and 4.5% (n = 19) patients, respectively. In the remaining 62% (n = 264) of patients the serological evidence of HAV, HBV, or HDV infection was lacking, and none of them had ingested hepatotoxins. FHF was presumed to be caused by non-A, non-B virus(es) infection. Sera of 50 patients from the latter group were tested for hepatitis E virus (HEV) RNA and HCV RNA. In 31 (62%), HEV could be implicated as the causative agent, and isolated HCV RNA could be detected in 7 (19%). Two hundred eighty eight (66%) patients died. Approximately 75% of those who died did so within 72 hours of hospitalisation. One quarter of the female patients with FHF were pregnant. Mortality among pregnant females, nonpregnant females, and male patients with FHF was similar (P > .1). Univariate analysis showed that age, size of the liver assessed by percussion, grade of coma, presence of clinical features of cerebral edema, presence of infection, serum bilirubin, and prothrombin time prolongation over controls at admission were related to survival (P < .01). The rapidity of onset of encephalopathy and cause of FHF did not influence the outcome. Cox's proportional hazard regression showed age ≥ 40 years, presence of cerebral edema, serum bilirubin ≥ 15 mg/dL, and prothrombin time prolongation of 25 seconds or more over controls were independent predictors of outcome. Ninety-three percent of the patients with three or more of the above prognostic markers died. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and the negative predictive value of the presence of three or more of these prognostic factors for mortality was 93%, 80%, 86%, and 89.5%, respectively, with a diagnostic accuracy of 87.3%. We conclude that most of our patients with FHF might have been caused by hepatotropic viral infection, and non-A, non-B virus(es) seems to be the dominant hepatotropic viral infection among these patients. They presented with encephalopathy within 4 weeks of the onset of symptoms. Pregnancy, cause, and rapidity of onset of encephalopathy did not influence survival. The prognostic model developed in the current study is simple and can be performed at admission

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium ) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the fi eld understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field