Expert systems for adaptive control of large space structures

It is expected that space systems for the future will evolve to structures of unprecedented size with associated extreme control requirements. A method is necessary that is sufficiently general to initiate stable control of a vehicle and subsequently learn the true nature of the structure. It is suggested that a suitable constructed expert system (ES) would be capable of learning by appending observations to a knowledge base. To verify that an ES can control a large space structure, numerical simulations of a simple structure subjected to periodic vibrations and the performance of a classical controllers were performed. The ES was then exercised to show its ability to truthfully mimic nominal control and to demonstrate its superiority to the classical controller, given sensor failures. An ES generating software package, The Intelligent Machine Model, was employed. It uses the pattern matching technique. Results of this program are discussed

1991 NASA Life Support Systems Analysis workshop

The 1991 Life Support Systems Analysis Workshop was sponsored by NASA Headquarters' Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST) to foster communication among NASA, industrial, and academic specialists, and to integrate their inputs and disseminate information to them. The overall objective of systems analysis within the Life Support Technology Program of OAST is to identify, guide the development of, and verify designs which will increase the performance of the life support systems on component, subsystem, and system levels for future human space missions. The specific goals of this workshop were to report on the status of systems analysis capabilities, to integrate the chemical processing industry technologies, and to integrate recommendations for future technology developments related to systems analysis for life support systems. The workshop included technical presentations, discussions, and interactive planning, with time allocated for discussion of both technology status and time-phased technology development recommendations. Key personnel from NASA, industry, and academia delivered inputs and presentations on the status and priorities of current and future systems analysis methods and requirements

1992 NASA Life Support Systems Analysis workshop

The 1992 Life Support Systems Analysis Workshop was sponsored by NASA's Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST) to integrate the inputs from, disseminate information to, and foster communication among NASA, industry, and academic specialists. The workshop continued discussion and definition of key issues identified in the 1991 workshop, including: (1) modeling and experimental validation; (2) definition of systems analysis evaluation criteria; (3) integration of modeling at multiple levels; and (4) assessment of process control modeling approaches. Through both the 1991 and 1992 workshops, NASA has continued to seek input from industry and university chemical process modeling and analysis experts, and to introduce and apply new systems analysis approaches to life support systems. The workshop included technical presentations, discussions, and interactive planning, with sufficient time allocated for discussion of both technology status and technology development recommendations. Key personnel currently involved with life support technology developments from NASA, industry, and academia provided input to the status and priorities of current and future systems analysis methods and requirements

31st Annual Meeting and Associated Programs of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC 2016) : part two

Background The immunological escape of tumors represents one of the main ob- stacles to the treatment of malignancies. The blockade of PD-1 or CTLA-4 receptors represented a milestone in the history of immunotherapy. However, immune checkpoint inhibitors seem to be effective in specific cohorts of patients. It has been proposed that their efficacy relies on the presence of an immunological response. Thus, we hypothesized that disruption of the PD-L1/PD-1 axis would synergize with our oncolytic vaccine platform PeptiCRAd. Methods We used murine B16OVA in vivo tumor models and flow cytometry analysis to investigate the immunological background. Results First, we found that high-burden B16OVA tumors were refractory to combination immunotherapy. However, with a more aggressive schedule, tumors with a lower burden were more susceptible to the combination of PeptiCRAd and PD-L1 blockade. The therapy signifi- cantly increased the median survival of mice (Fig. 7). Interestingly, the reduced growth of contralaterally injected B16F10 cells sug- gested the presence of a long lasting immunological memory also against non-targeted antigens. Concerning the functional state of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), we found that all the immune therapies would enhance the percentage of activated (PD-1pos TIM- 3neg) T lymphocytes and reduce the amount of exhausted (PD-1pos TIM-3pos) cells compared to placebo. As expected, we found that PeptiCRAd monotherapy could increase the number of antigen spe- cific CD8+ T cells compared to other treatments. However, only the combination with PD-L1 blockade could significantly increase the ra- tio between activated and exhausted pentamer positive cells (p= 0.0058), suggesting that by disrupting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis we could decrease the amount of dysfunctional antigen specific T cells. We ob- served that the anatomical location deeply influenced the state of CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes. In fact, TIM-3 expression was in- creased by 2 fold on TILs compared to splenic and lymphoid T cells. In the CD8+ compartment, the expression of PD-1 on the surface seemed to be restricted to the tumor micro-environment, while CD4 + T cells had a high expression of PD-1 also in lymphoid organs. Interestingly, we found that the levels of PD-1 were significantly higher on CD8+ T cells than on CD4+ T cells into the tumor micro- environment (p < 0.0001). Conclusions In conclusion, we demonstrated that the efficacy of immune check- point inhibitors might be strongly enhanced by their combination with cancer vaccines. PeptiCRAd was able to increase the number of antigen-specific T cells and PD-L1 blockade prevented their exhaus- tion, resulting in long-lasting immunological memory and increased median survival

Effects of fluoxetine on functional outcomes after acute stroke (FOCUS): a pragmatic, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial

Background Results of small trials indicate that fluoxetine might improve functional outcomes after stroke. The FOCUS trial aimed to provide a precise estimate of these effects. Methods FOCUS was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial done at 103 hospitals in the UK. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had a clinical stroke diagnosis, were enrolled and randomly assigned between 2 days and 15 days after onset, and had focal neurological deficits. Patients were randomly allocated fluoxetine 20 mg or matching placebo orally once daily for 6 months via a web-based system by use of a minimisation algorithm. The primary outcome was functional status, measured with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), at 6 months. Patients, carers, health-care staff, and the trial team were masked to treatment allocation. Functional status was assessed at 6 months and 12 months after randomisation. Patients were analysed according to their treatment allocation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN83290762. Findings Between Sept 10, 2012, and March 31, 2017, 3127 patients were recruited. 1564 patients were allocated fluoxetine and 1563 allocated placebo. mRS data at 6 months were available for 1553 (99·3%) patients in each treatment group. The distribution across mRS categories at 6 months was similar in the fluoxetine and placebo groups (common odds ratio adjusted for minimisation variables 0·951 [95% CI 0·839–1·079]; p=0·439). Patients allocated fluoxetine were less likely than those allocated placebo to develop new depression by 6 months (210 [13·43%] patients vs 269 [17·21%]; difference 3·78% [95% CI 1·26–6·30]; p=0·0033), but they had more bone fractures (45 [2·88%] vs 23 [1·47%]; difference 1·41% [95% CI 0·38–2·43]; p=0·0070). There were no significant differences in any other event at 6 or 12 months. Interpretation Fluoxetine 20 mg given daily for 6 months after acute stroke does not seem to improve functional outcomes. Although the treatment reduced the occurrence of depression, it increased the frequency of bone fractures. These results do not support the routine use of fluoxetine either for the prevention of post-stroke depression or to promote recovery of function. Funding UK Stroke Association and NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme

Feasibility of reporting results of large randomised controlled trials to participants:experience from the Fluoxetine or Control under supervision (FOCUS) trial

Objectives Informing research participants of the results of studies in which they took part is viewed as an ethical imperative. However, there is little guidance in the literature about how to do this. The Fluoxetine Or Control Under Supervision trial randomised 3127 patients with a recent acute stroke to 6 months of fluoxetine or placebo and was published in the Lancet on 5 December 2018. The trial team decided to inform the participants of the results at exactly the same time as the Lancet publication, and also whether they had been allocated fluoxetine or placebo. In this report, we describe how we informed participants of the results.Design In the 6-month and 12-month follow-up questionnaires, we invited participants to provide an email address if they wished to be informed of the results of the trial. We re-opened our trial telephone helpline between 5 December 2018 and 31 March 2019.Setting UK stroke services.Participants 3127 participants were randomised. 2847 returned 6-month follow-up forms and 2703 returned 12-month follow-up forms; the remaining participants had died (380), withdrawn consent or did not respond.Results Of those returning follow-up questionnaires, a total of 1845 email addresses were provided and a further 50 people requested results to be sent by post. Results were sent to all email and postal addresses provided; 309 emails were returned unrecognised. Seventeen people replied, of whom three called the helpline and the rest responded by email.Conclusion It is feasible to disseminate results of large trials to research participants, though only around 60% of those randomised wanted to receive the results. The system we developed was efficient and required very little resource, and could be replicated by trialists in the future.Trial registration number ISRCTN83290762; Post-results