The Land Analysis System (LAS)

The Land Analysis System (LAS) is an interactive software system, available in the public domain, for the analysis, display, and management of multispectral and other digital image data. The system was developed to support earth sciences research and development activities. LAS provides over 240 applications functions and utilities, a flexible user interface, complete on-line and hardcopy documentation, extensive image data file management, reformatting, and conversion utilities, and high level device independent access to image display hardware. The capabilities are summarized of the latest release of the system (version 5). Emphasis is given to the system portability and the isolation of hardware and software dependencies in this release

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Use of Telemedicine for Post-discharge Assessment of the Surgical Wound: International Cohort Study, and Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

Objective: This study aimed to determine whether remote wound reviews using telemedicine can be safely upscaled, and if standardised assessment tools are needed. Summary background data: Surgical site infection is the most common complication of surgery worldwide, and frequently occurs after hospital discharge. Evidence to support implementation of telemedicine during postoperative recovery will be an essential component of pandemic recovery. Methods: The primary outcome of this study was surgical site infection reported up to 30-days after surgery (SSI), comparing rates reported using telemedicine (telephone and/or video assessment) to those with in-person review. The first part of this study analysed primary data from an international cohort study of adult patients undergoing abdominal surgery who were discharged from hospital before 30-days after surgery. The second part combined this data with the results of a systematic review to perform a meta-analysis of all available data conducted in accordance with PRIMSA guidelines (PROSPERO:192596). Results: The cohort study included 15,358 patients from 66 countries (8069 high, 4448 middle, 1744 low income). Of these, 6907 (45.0%) were followed up using telemedicine. The SSI rate reported using telemedicine was slightly lower than with in-person follow-up (13.4% vs. 11.1%, P<0.001), which persisted after risk adjustment in a mixed-effects model (adjusted odds ratio: 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.63-0.84, P<0.001). This association was consistent across sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including a propensity-score matched model. In nine eligible non-randomised studies identified, a pooled mean of 64% of patients underwent telemedicine follow-up. Upon meta-analysis, the SSI rate reported was lower with telemedicine (odds ratio: 0.67, 0.47-0.94) than in-person (reference) follow-up (I2=0.45, P=0.12), although there a high risk of bias in included studies. Conclusions: Use of telemedicine to assess the surgical wound post-discharge is feasible, but risks underreporting of SSI. Standardised tools for remote assessment of SSI must be evaluated and adopted as telemedicine is upscaled globally