A survey of distributed data aggregation algorithms

Distributed data aggregation is an important task, allowing the de- centralized determination of meaningful global properties, that can then be used to direct the execution of other applications. The resulting val- ues result from the distributed computation of functions like count, sum and average. Some application examples can found to determine the network size, total storage capacity, average load, majorities and many others. In the last decade, many di erent approaches have been pro- posed, with di erent trade-o s in terms of accuracy, reliability, message and time complexity. Due to the considerable amount and variety of ag- gregation algorithms, it can be di cult and time consuming to determine which techniques will be more appropriate to use in speci c settings, jus- tifying the existence of a survey to aid in this task. This work reviews the state of the art on distributed data aggregation algorithms, providing three main contributions. First, it formally de nes the concept of aggrega- tion, characterizing the di erent types of aggregation functions. Second, it succinctly describes the main aggregation techniques, organizing them in a taxonomy. Finally, it provides some guidelines toward the selection and use of the most relevant techniques, summarizing their principal characteristics.

Flow updating: fault-tolerant aggregation for dynamic networks

Documento submetido para revisão pelos pares. A publicar em Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing. ISSN 0743-7315

Improving diagnostic yield in obscure gastrointestinal bleeding - how virtual chromoendoscopy may be the answer

Background and aim: A significant proportion of patients presenting with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) have negative small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) examinations, and yet remain at risk of rebleeding. We aimed to evaluate whether a second-look review of SBCE images using flexible spectral color enhancement (FICE) may improve the detection of potentially bleeding lesions. Materials and methods: This was a retrospective, single-center study including consecutive patients with OGIB subjected to SBCE, whose standard white light examination was nondiagnostic. Each SBCE was reviewed using FICE 1. New findings were labeled as either P1 or P2 lesions according to bleeding potential. Patients were followed up to assess the incidence of rebleeding. Results: A total of 42 consecutive patients were included. Sixteen patients (38%) experienced rebleeding after a mean follow-up of 26 months. Review of SBCE images using FICE 1 enabled the identification of previously unrecognized P2 lesions, mainly angioectasias, in nine patients (21%) and P1 lesions, mainly erosions, in 26 patients (62%). Among patients who experienced rebleeding, 13/16 (81%) were diagnosed with P1 lesions with FICE 1 (P=0.043), whereas 3/16 (19%) had confirmed nondiagnostic SBCE and only 1/16 (6%) had newly diagnosed P2 (plus P1) lesions. An alternative source of bleeding outside the small bowel was found in only 3/16 (19%) patients with rebleeding during the follow-up. Conclusion: In a significant proportion of patients with OGIB, FICE 1 may detect potentially bleeding lesions previously missed under conventional white light SBCE. Review of nondiagnostic SBCE with FICE 1 may be a valuable strategy to obviate the need for further investigations in patients with OGIB, particularly for those who experience rebleeding.