Progressive Image Transmission Based on Joint Source-Channel Decoding Using Adaptive Sum-Product Algorithm

A joint source-channel decoding method is designed to accelerate the iterative log-domain sum-product decoding procedure of LDPC codes as well as to improve the reconstructed image quality. Error resilience modes are used in the JPEG2000 source codec making it possible to provide useful source decoded information to the channel decoder. After each iteration, a tentative decoding is made and the channel decoded bits are then sent to the JPEG2000 decoder. The positions of bits belonging to error-free coding passes are then fed back to the channel decoder. The log-likelihood ratios (LLRs) of these bits are then modified by a weighting factor for the next iteration. By observing the statistics of the decoding procedure, the weighting factor is designed as a function of the channel condition. Results show that the proposed joint decoding methods can greatly reduce the number of iterations, and thereby reduce the decoding delay considerably. At the same time, this method always outperforms the nonsource controlled decoding method by up to 3 dB in terms of PSNR

Morphological hit-or-miss transformation for shape recognition

In this paper, the morphological hit-or-miss transformation is analyzed for use in the recognition of both perfect shapes and imperfect shapes. Shape recognition is achieved by locating the objects to be recognized within the image. The shape recognition problem is discussed in the following two aspects. First, a theorem is presented in which the hit-or-miss operations employ the structuring elements [thetav]A and [thetav](W [subset of] Ac), instead of using sets A and (W [subset of] Ac). Here A is the boundary of A, and [thetav](Q [subset of] Ac) is the containing A, [thetav]A is the boundary of A, and [thetav](W [subset of] Ac) is the boundary of (W [subset of] Ac). Second, the recognition of imperfect shapes due to indeterminate variation of an object shape is studied here. Our method employs a priori known shape information as a basis for structuring elements and constructs structuring elements which are then used in a hit-or-miss transformation to find the location of the shape to be recognized. Each occurrence of a target shape is represented either by one point or by a small cluster of points within a calculated range according to the associated structuring elements. Finally, we present the hit-or-miss operation without window restrictions as a technique for recognizing both perfect and imperfect shapes, thereby making the method more flexible.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/29148/1/0000190.pd

Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation

Contains fulltext : 125374.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Edoxaban is a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor with proven antithrombotic effects. The long-term efficacy and safety of edoxaban as compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation is not known. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial comparing two once-daily regimens of edoxaban with warfarin in 21,105 patients with moderate-to-high-risk atrial fibrillation (median follow-up, 2.8 years). The primary efficacy end point was stroke or systemic embolism. Each edoxaban regimen was tested for noninferiority to warfarin during the treatment period. The principal safety end point was major bleeding. RESULTS: The annualized rate of the primary end point during treatment was 1.50% with warfarin (median time in the therapeutic range, 68.4%), as compared with 1.18% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.79; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.99; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 1.07; 97.5% CI, 0.87 to 1.31; P=0.005 for noninferiority). In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was a trend favoring high-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 0.87; 97.5% CI, 0.73 to 1.04; P=0.08) and an unfavorable trend with low-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 1.13; 97.5% CI, 0.96 to 1.34; P=0.10). The annualized rate of major bleeding was 3.43% with warfarin versus 2.75% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91; P<0.001) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.55; P<0.001). The corresponding annualized rates of death from cardiovascular causes were 3.17% versus 2.74% (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97; P=0.01), and 2.71% (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.96; P=0.008), and the corresponding rates of the key secondary end point (a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes) were 4.43% versus 3.85% (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.96; P=0.005), and 4.23% (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Both once-daily regimens of edoxaban were noninferior to warfarin with respect to the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism and were associated with significantly lower rates of bleeding and death from cardiovascular causes. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development; ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00781391.)