Searching Baxter's URDF robot joint and link tree for active serial chains

Teleoperation is integral to society's uptake of modern robotic systems. Given the wide array of readily available robots, ranging from simple mobile platforms and UAVs to advanced humanoid robots such as ASIMO and PR2, teleoperation is required in many different forms. The recent advances in virtual reality systems, interactive input controls and even haptic devices facilitate a wide range of new approaches to teleoperation control. This paper considers a dynamic user interface for improving the operator's ability to teleoperate heterogeneous robotic systems in dynamic and challenging environments. In order to achieve the proposed dynamic user interface the robot(s) comprising the heterogeneous robotic system and their active components need to be categorized. The recent uptake of ROS means that many robots are now represented within the standardized Unified Robot Descriptive Format (URDF), and this paper proposes a method for searching the URDF for active serial chains in individual robot systems. Results demonstrate the ability of the approach to determine active serial chains and associated kinematic information for the Baxter torso robot.

Adding a new anticoagulant or antiplatelet agent for patient receiving aspirin after an acute coronary syndrome? - Results from a pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials

 Objectives: To synthesize the efficacy and safety outcomes from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) regarding new oral anticoagulant, protease-activated receptor-1 (PAR-1) antagonist, and warfarin adjunctive to aspirin for patients after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) via pair-wise and network meta-analyses.
Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library Web of Knowledge, and Scopus. The pair-wise meta-analysis was undertaken respectively to each agent/treatment category via Revmen 5.1. In order to estimate the relative efficacy of each agent/treatment category whilst preserving the randomized comparisons within each trial, a Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted in WinBUGS using both fixed- and random-effects model. Covariate analysis was performed to explore the effects of length of follow-up and age of subject on the final results.
Results: In total, 23 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. As shown by the results (OR,95%CI) for the pair-wise meta-analysis, new oral anticoagulants (0.85, [0.78, 0.93] and 3.04, [2.21, 4.19]), PAR-1 antagonists (0.80, [0.52, 1.22] and 1.55, [1.25, 1.93]) and warfarin (0.87, [0.74, 1.02] and 1.77, [1.46, 2.14]) might be able to provide better outcome in the incidences of major adverse events (MAE) but with higher bleeding risk comparing to aspirin treatment alone. Based on the model fit assessment, the random-effects model was adopted. The network meta-analysis (treatment effect comparing to aspirin lone) identified ximelagatran (-0.3044, [-0.8601, 0.2502]), dabigatran (-0.2144, [-0.8666, 0.4525]), rivoroxaban (-0.2179, [-0.5986, 0.1628]) and vorapaxar (-0.2272, [-0.81, 0.1664]) produced better improvements in MAE incidences whereas vorapaxar (0.3764, [-0.4444, 1.124]), warfarin (0.663, [0.3375, 1.037]), ximelagatran (0.7509, [-0.4164, 2.002]) and apixaban (0.8594, [-0.0049, 1.7]) produced less major bleeding events. The indirect comparisons among drug category (difference in incidence comparing to aspirin lone) showed new oral anticoagulants (-0.1974, [-0.284, -0.111]) and PAR-1 antagonists (-0.1239, [-0.215, -0.033]) to besuperior to warfarin (-0.1004, [-0.166, -0.035]) in the occurrences of MAE whereas PAR-1 antagonists (0.4292, [0.2123, 0.6476]) afforded better outcomes in major bleeding events against warfarin (0.5742, [0.3889, 0.7619]) and new oral anticoagulants (1.169, [0.8667, 1.485]).
Conclusion: Based on the study results, we cannot recommend the routine administration of new oral anticoagulant as add-on treatment for patients after ACS. However, for ACS patients comorbid with atrial fibrillation, new oral anticoagulant might be superior to warfarin in both efficacy and safety outcomes.