Forecasting Spare Parts Demand Using Statistical Analysis

Abstract Spare parts are very essential in most industrial companies. They are characterized by their large number and their high impact on the companies' operations whenever needed. Therefore companies tend to analyze their spare parts demand and try to estimate their future consumption. Nevertheless, they face difficulties in figuring out an optimal forecasting method that deals with the lumpy and intermittent demand of spare parts. In this paper, we performed a comparison between five forecasting methods based on three statistical tools; Mean squared error (MSE), mean absolute deviation (MAD) and mean error (ME), where the results showed close performance for all the methods associated with their optimal parameters and the frequency of the spare part demand. Therefore, we proposed to compare all the methods based on the tracking signal with the objective of minimizing the average number of out of controls. This approach was tested in a comparative study at a local paper mill company. Our findings showed that the application of the tracking signal approach helps companies to better select the optimal forecasting method and reduce forecast errors

Assessing the Remote Engineering Lab VISIR at Al-Quds University in Palestine

Engineering labs play a vital role in engineering education, make science come alive, and supply students with better understanding of theories. As a result, they contribute to the improvement of their knowledge and skills. Remote labs not enable sharing of teaching resources such as devices, equipment and instrumentation between universities, but also relax time and space constraints; yet they are considered as a complementary asset to the traditional hands-on labs. This paper is concerned with a two-stage assessment of the engineering remote lab VISIR. In the first stage, the assessment investigated if the students accept to use VISIR in their future lab courses at the Faculty of Engineering at Al-Quds University in Palestine. In the second stage, a deeper analysis will be performed to compare VISIR to hands-on and simulators based on the evaluation criteria: performance, students’ retention rate and satisfaction survey.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Assisting adaptation in a changing world

Today, all ecosystems are undergoing environmental change due to human activity, and in many cases the rate of change is accelerating due to climate change. Consequently, conservation programs are increasingly focused on the response of organisms, populations, and ecosystems to novel conditions. In parallel, the field of conservation biology is developing and deploying new tools to assist adaptation, which we define as aiming to increase the probability that organisms, populations, and ecosystems successfully adapt to ongoing change in biotic and abiotic conditions. Practitioners are aiming to assist a suite of adaptive processes, including acclimatization, range shifts, and evolution, at the individual and population level, while influencing the aggregate of these responses to assist ecosystem reorganization. The practice of assisting adaptation holds promise for environmental conservation, but effective policy and implementation will require thoughtful consideration of potential social and biological benefits and risks

Avaliação em Duas Fases do Laboratório Remoto em Engenharia, VISIR, na Universidade Al-Quds da Palestina

Os laboratórios de ciência e engenharia desempenham um papel fundamental na demonstração de conceitos e princípios, bem como na melhoria das competências técnicas. Com a introdução de laboratórios remotos foi possível partilhar dispositivos, equipamento e instrumentação entre universidades. Mais, eles evitam restrições de tempo e espaço, sendo capazes de se adaptar ao ritmo próprio de cada estudante, no caso do tempo passado no laboratório não ter sido suficiente. Neste artigo é descrito um estudo empírico, dividido em duas fases de avaliação. Na primeira fase foi avaliada a flexibilidade de aplicação do laboratório remoto em engenharia VISIR na faculdade de engenharia na Universidade de Al-Quds em Jerusalém, Palestina. Durante esta fase foi ainda avaliada a aceitação desta tecnologia, pelos estudantes, quando em interação com os laboratórios tradicionais. Na segunda fase deste estudo, que decor rerá em 2014/15, será realizada uma aprofundada análise comparativa de forma a caracterizar o VISIR perante as restantes modalidades de laboratórios de engenharia, os práticos/presenciais e os de simulação. Estas três formas de laboratório são comparadas através de testes experimentais, tendo em atenção os critérios de avaliação definidos para os laboratórios de ensino de engenharia e de acordo com os objetivos fundamentais dos cursos, nomeadamente, as taxas de retenção e de satisfação dos estudantes, bem como do seu desempenho.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

A Two-Stage Assessment of the Remote Engineering Lab VISIR at Al-Quds University in Palestine

Engineering labs are an essential part in engineering education since they provide practical knowledge for students, illustrate concepts and principles, and improve technical skills. Remote labs allow devices, equipment and instrumentations to be shared with other universities. Additionally, they relax time and space constraints, and are capable of being adapted to the pace of each student in case there was insufficient time in the laboratory. This paper describes an empirical study, which embeds two stages of assessment. In the first stage, we are concerned with finding out the level of flexibility when applying the engineering remote lab VISIR as a contemporary remote lab technology in the engineering faculty at Al-Quds University in Jerusalem in Palestine, and whether the engineering students will accept such technology to interact with in their future lab courses or not. In the second stage of the assessment study, a more in-depth comparative analysis will be carried out in order to have a categorization of VISIR in the landscape of the engineering labs such as hands-on and simulations. The three lab approaches will be compared with each other by means of an experimental testing based on assessment criteria that are in accordance with the fundamental course objectives of engineering instructional labs: student’s retention rate and satisfaction survey, as well as their performance.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

EPidemiology Of Cardiogenic sHock in Scotland (EPOCHS):a multicentre, prospective observational study of the prevalence, management and outcomes of cardiogenic shock in Scotland

BackgroundDespite high rates of cardiovascular disease in Scotland, the prevalence and outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock are unknown.MethodsWe undertook a prospective observational cohort study of consecutive patients with cardiogenic shock admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) or coronary care unit at 13 hospitals in Scotland for a six-month period. Denominator data from the Scottish Intensive Care Society Audit Group were used to estimate ICU prevalence; data for coronary care units were unavailable. We undertook multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with in-hospital mortality.ResultsIn total, 247 patients with cardiogenic shock were included. After exclusion of coronary care unit admissions, this comprised 3.0% of all ICU admissions during the study period (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6 to 3.5%). Aetiology was acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in 48%. The commonest vasoactive treatment was noradrenaline (56%) followed by adrenaline (46%) and dobutamine (40%). Mechanical circulatory support was used in 30%. Overall in-hospital mortality was 55%. After multivariable logistic regression, age (odds ratio [OR] 1.04, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.06), admission lactate (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.19), Society for Cardiovascular Angiographic Intervention stage D or E at presentation (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.10 to 4.29), and use of adrenaline (OR 2.73, 95% CI 1.40 to 5.40) were associated with mortality.ConclusionsIn Scotland the prevalence of cardiogenic shock was 3% of all ICU admissions; more than half died prior to discharge. There was significant variation in treatment approaches, particularly with respect to vasoactive support strategy. <br/

Treatment of cyclic vomiting syndrome with co-enzyme Q10 and amitriptyline, a retrospective study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Cyclic vomiting syndrome (CVS), which is defined by recurrent stereotypical episodes of nausea and vomiting, is a relatively-common disabling condition that is associated with migraine headache and mitochondrial dysfunction. Co-enzyme Q10 (Co-Q) is a nutritional supplement that has demonstrated efficacy in pediatric and adult migraine. It is increasingly used in CVS despite the complete lack of studies to demonstrate its value in treatment</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using an Internet-based survey filled out by subjects with CVS or their parents, the efficacy, tolerability and subject satisfaction in CVS prophylaxis were queried. Subjects taking Co-Q (22 subjects) were compared against those taking amitriptyline (162 subjects), which is the general standard-of-care.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Subjects/parents reported similar levels of efficacy for a variety of episode parameters (frequency, duration, number of emesis, nausea severity). There was a 50% reduction in at least one of those four parameters in 72% of subjects treated with amitriptyline and 68% of subjects treated Co-Q. However, while no side effects were reported on Co-Q, 50% of subjects on amitriptyline reported side effects (P = 5 × 10^-7), resulting in 21% discontinuing treatment (P = 0.007). Subjects/parents considered the benefits to outweigh the risks of treatment in 47% of cases on amitriptyline and 77% of cases on Co-Q (P = 0.008).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our data suggest that the natural food supplement Co-Q is potentially efficacious and tolerable in the treatment of CVS, and should be considered as an option in CVS prophylaxis. Our data would likely be helpful in the design of a double-blind clinical trial.</p

Overview of diagnosis and management of paediatric headache. Part I: diagnosis

Headache is the most common somatic complaint in children and adolescents. The evaluation should include detailed history of children and adolescents completed by detailed general and neurological examinations. Moreover, the possible role of psychological factors, life events and excessively stressful lifestyle in influencing recurrent headache need to be checked. The choice of laboratory tests rests on the differential diagnosis suggested by the history, the character and temporal pattern of the headache, and the physical and neurological examinations. Subjects who have any signs or symptoms of focal/progressive neurological disturbances should be investigated by neuroimaging techniques. The electroencephalogram and other neurophysiological examinations are of limited value in the routine evaluation of headaches. In a primary headache disorder, headache itself is the illness and headache is not attributed to any other disorder (e.g. migraine, tension-type headache, cluster headache and other trigeminal autonomic cephalgias). In secondary headache disorders, headache is the symptom of identifiable structural, metabolic or other abnormality. Red flags include the first or worst headache ever in the life, recent headache onset, increasing severity or frequency, occipital location, awakening from sleep because of headache, headache occurring exclusively in the morning associated with severe vomiting and headache associated with straining. Thus, the differential diagnosis between primary and secondary headaches rests mainly on clinical criteria. A thorough evaluation of headache in children and adolescents is necessary to make the correct diagnosis and initiate treatment, bearing in mind that children with headache are more likely to experience psychosocial adversity and to grow up with an excess of both headache and other physical and psychiatric symptoms and this creates an important healthcare problem for their future life

Optimal siting, sizing, and enforcement of marine protected areas

The design of protected areas, whether marine or terrestrial, rarely considers how people respond to the imposition of no-take sites with complete or incomplete enforcement. Consequently, these protected areas may fail to achieve their intended goal. We present and solve a spatial bio-economic model in which a manager chooses the optimal location, size, and enforcement level of a marine protected area (MPA). This manager acts as a Stackelberg leader, and her choices consider villagers’ best response to the MPA in a spatial Nash equilibrium of fishing site and effort decisions. Relevant to lower income country settings but general to other settings, we incorporate limited enforcement budgets, distance costs of traveling to fishing sites, and labor allocation to onshore wage opportunities. The optimal MPA varies markedly across alternative manager goals and budget sizes, but always induce changes in villagers’ decisions as a function of distance, dispersal, and wage. We consider MPA managers with ecological conservation goals and with economic goals, and identify the shortcomings of several common manager decision rules, including those focused on: (1) fishery outcomes rather than broader economic goals, (2) fish stocks at MPA sites rather than across the full marinescape, (3) absolute levels rather than additional values, and (4) costless enforcement. Our results demonstrate that such naïve or overly narrow decision rules can lead to inefficient MPA designs that miss economic and conservation opportunities

Casirivimab and imdevimab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: Casirivimab and imdevimab are non-competing monoclonal antibodies that bind to two different sites on the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein, blocking viral entry into host cells. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of casirivimab and imdevimab administered in combination in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: RECOVERY is a randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial comparing several possible treatments with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. 127 UK hospitals took part in the evaluation of casirivimab and imdevimab. Eligible participants were any patients aged at least 12 years admitted to hospital with clinically suspected or laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual care plus casirivimab 4 g and imdevimab 4 g administered together in a single intravenous infusion. Investigators and data assessors were masked to analyses of the outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality assessed by intention to treat, first only in patients without detectable antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 infection at randomisation (ie, those who were seronegative) and then in the overall population. Safety was assessed in all participants who received casirivimab and imdevimab. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between Sept 18, 2020, and May 22, 2021, 9785 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible for casirivimab and imdevimab, of which 4839 were randomly assigned to casirivimab and imdevimab plus usual care and 4946 to usual care alone. 3153 (32%) of 9785 patients were seronegative, 5272 (54%) were seropositive, and 1360 (14%) had unknown baseline antibody status. 812 (8%) patients were known to have received at least one dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. In the primary efficacy population of seronegative patients, 396 (24%) of 1633 patients allocated to casirivimab and imdevimab versus 452 (30%) of 1520 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio [RR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·69–0·91; p=0·0009). In an analysis of all randomly assigned patients (regardless of baseline antibody status), 943 (19%) of 4839 patients allocated to casirivimab and imdevimab versus 1029 (21%) of 4946 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (RR 0·94, 95% CI 0·86–1·02; p=0·14). The proportional effect of casirivimab and imdevimab on mortality differed significantly between seropositive and seronegative patients (p value for heterogeneity=0·002). There were no deaths attributed to the treatment, or meaningful between-group differences in the pre-specified safety outcomes of cause-specific mortality, cardiac arrhythmia, thrombosis, or major bleeding events. Serious adverse reactions reported in seven (<1%) participants were believed by the local investigator to be related to treatment with casirivimab and imdevimab. Interpretation: In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, the monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab reduced 28-day mortality in patients who were seronegative (and therefore had not mounted their own humoral immune response) at baseline but not in those who were seropositive at baseline. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research