Modeling Hidden Nodes Collisions in Wireless Sensor Networks: Analysis Approach

This paper studied both types of collisions. In this paper, we show that advocated solutions for coping with hidden node collisions are unsuitable for sensor networks. We model both types of collisions and derive closed-form formula giving the probability of hidden and visible node collisions. To reduce these collisions, we propose two solutions. The first one based on tuning the carrier sense threshold saves a substantial amount of collisions by reducing the number of hidden nodes. The second one based on adjusting the contention window size is complementary to the first one. It reduces the probability of overlapping transmissions, which reduces both collisions due to hidden and visible nodes. We validate and evaluate the performance of these solutions through simulations

Survival of offspring in different groups.

<p>ETL, egg to larval stage; LTC, larval to cocoon stage; CTA, cocoon to adult stage.</p><p>1, whole-stage guarding group; 2, non-guarding group; 3, egg-guarding hiatus group; 4, larva-guarding hiatus group; 5, cocoon-guarding hiatus group; 6, multiparous stepmother-guarding group; 7, nulliparous stepmother-guarding group. The presence of the same letter after the mean±SE indicates a lack of significant difference within group (Scheffe multiple comparisons test, <i>P</i>≥0.05).</p

The relationship between rate of egg survival and guarding duration.

<p>Logistic regression: R² = 0.842, guarding duration coefficients = 0.944, constant coefficients = 1.569; ANOVA <i>F</i>_1,40 = 212.935, <i>P</i><0.001.</p

The relationship between rate of larval survival and guarding duration.

<p>Logistic regression: R² = 0.656, guarding duration coefficients = 0.951, constant coefficients = 1.563; ANOVA <i>F</i>_1,47 = 89.778, <i>P</i><0.001.</p

The relationship between egg that were dying and days from oviposition.

<p>The same letter at the data point indicates a lack of significant difference (Tukey multiple comparisons test, P≥0.05).</p

High-Dose Cytarabine in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

<div><p>The optimal dose, scheme, and clinical setting for Ara-C in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) treatment remain uncertain. In this study, we performed a meta-analysis to systematically assess the impact of high-dose cytarabine (HDAC) on AML therapy during the induction and consolidation stages. Twenty-two trials with a total of 5,945 <i>de</i><i>novo</i> AML patients were included in the meta-analysis. Only patients less than 60 year-old were included in the study. Using HDAC in induction therapy was beneficial for RFS (HR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.35–0.93; <i>P</i> = 0.02) but not so for CR rate (HR = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.93–1.09; <i>P</i> = 0.88) and OS (HR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.66–1.03; <i>P</i> = 0.1). In consolidation therapy, HDAC showed significant RFS benefits (HR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.49–0.9; <i>P</i> = 0.008) especially for the favorable-risk group (HR = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.21–0.69; <i>P</i> = 0.001) compared with SDAC (standard dose cytarabine), although no OS advantage was observed (HR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.55–1.27; <i>P</i> = 0.41). HDAC treatment seemed less effective than auto-BMT/allo-BMT treatment (HR = 1.66, 95% CI, 1.3–2.14; <i>P</i><0.0001) with similar OS. HDAC treatment led to lower relapse rate in induction and consolidation therapy than SDAC treatment, especially for the favorable-risk group. Auto-BMT/allo-BMT was more beneficial in prolonging RFS than HDAC.</p></div

Effect of HDAC versus SDAC in induction therapy.

<p><b>A</b>: Effect of HDAC versus SDAC in induction therapy on CR rate. <b>B</b>: Overall survival benefit of HDAC in induction therapy. <b>C</b>: Relapse free survival benefit of HDAC in induction therapy.</p

Relapse free survival benefit of HDAC in consolidation therapy.

<p><b>A</b>: Total relapse free survival benefit of HDAC in consolidation therapy. <b>B</b>: Relapse free survival benefit of different subgroups of HDAC in consolidation therapy.</p

Effect of HDAC versus BMT on overall survival.

<p>Effect of HDAC versus BMT on overall survival.</p

Characteristics of Included Studies for consolidation therapy.

<p>Note: ▴ S. Miyawaki et al, 2011 repeated the same trial of S, Ohtake et al, 2011.</p><p>BMT randomized trials were defined that if the patients didn’t have donors, they were randomized into auto-BMT and high-dosed Ara-C groups.</p><p>★analyze analyze <60 years the patients in each trial.</p><p>Abbreviations: NR, not reported; IDA, idarubicin; Ara-c, cytarabin; VP-16, etoposide; DNR, daunorubicin MCT, multiagent chemotherapy;</p><p>CTX, cyclophosphamide; MTZ, mitoxantrone; AZQ, diaziquone; 6-TG, thioguanine; AMS, amsacrine.</p><p>Characteristics of Included Studies for consolidation therapy.</p