ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In physical therapy, postural tests are frequently used to diagnose neuropathies, particularly in diabetic individuals. This study aims to develop a method based on the analysis of time series that allows discriminating between healthy and diabetic subjects with or without a neuropathic condition. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do features obtained from time series corresponding to postural tests allow us to reliably discriminate between healthy, diabetic and neuropathic patients? METHODS: In this study, 32 people participated in the healthy, diabetic, and neuropathic categories (11, 9, and 12, respectively). The data was collected by positioning each participant on a Wii Balanced Board platform, under 8 different conditions. The analyzed time series are sensed by devices that capture variations in the subject's center of pressure when subjected to a test on different conditions over a short period of time. The method proposed considers statistical techniques used for characterizing the time series combined with machine learning techniques to classify the individual's profile into one of the three categories mentioned. The classification is supported by an underlying probabilistic model, based on the characteristics of the time series, generating average curves for each class, which are then used by the classification methods. RESULTS: The empirical results include classification models for each class, obtaining a performance (F-score) over 98%. In addition, other models considering the particular conditions to which the subject is exposed during the test are developed, revealing that the conditions of eyes open and eyes closed show the highest levels of discrimination to classify participants into one of the three class categories. SIGNIFICANCE: These results suggest a test protocol simplification and, at the same time, that the proposed method based on the analysis of the time series associated with the test used is highly predictive and may reliably complement or substitute a questionnaire-based diagnosis.
Subject(s)
Peripheral Nervous System Diseases , Postural Balance , Humans , Time Factors , Models, Statistical , Machine LearningABSTRACT
We analyze 6 months of Twitter conversations related to the Chilean Covid-19 vaccination process, in order to understand the online forces that argue for or against it and suggest effective digital communication strategies. Using AI, we classify accounts into four categories that emerge from the data as a result of the type of language used. This classification naturally distinguishes pro- and anti-vaccine activists from moderates that promote or inhibit vaccination in discussions, which also play a key role that should be addressed by public policies. We find that all categories display relatively constant opinions, but that the number of tweeting accounts grows in each category during controversial periods. We also find that accounts disfavoring vaccination tend to appear in the periphery of the interaction network, which is consistent with Chile's high immunization levels. However, these are more active in addressing those favoring vaccination than vice-versa, revealing a potential communication problem even in a society where the antivaccine movement has no central role. Our results highlight the importance of social network analysis to understand public discussions and suggest online interventions that can help achieve successful immunization campaigns.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Social Media , Humans , COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Vaccination , Anti-Vaccination MovementABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to compare the cytotoxic effect of threematerials, which have been used for treating dental hypersensitivity. Materialand method: In vitro study. Clinpro (3M Co, St. Paul, MN. USA), Seal & Protect(Dentsply, DeTrey GmbH. Germany) and UltraEZ (Ultradent Products,Inc., S. South Jordan UT. USA) were used at concentrations of 0.1, 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001g/ml on human gingival fibroblasts. Furthermore, Clinpro and Seal & Protect were applied to this cell culture as polymerized disks. Toxicity was assessed at 24 and 48 hours by the use of the cell viability assay (MTT). Statistical analysis for cell viability was performed using two-way ANOVA and Tukeys post hoc test. Statistical significance was set at 5 percent. Results: Seal & Protect and Clinpro were found to be highly toxic at 24 and 48 hours, reaching 70 percent toxicity at concentrations over 0.01g/ml. Seal & Protect and Clinpro polymerized disks were toxic at 24 and 48 hours. UltraEZ showed an increased between 46 percent and 67 percent in cell viability at 24 hours and between 8 percent and 45 percent at 48 hours. Statistical analysis showed differences between these three desensitizers when comparing concentration and control group (p<0.05). Discussion: UltraEZ did not have a cytotoxic effect and may be considered a compatible and safe material, whereas polymerized and non-polymerized Clinpro and Seal & Protect should be used with caution...
Introduccion: El proposito de este estudio es comparar el efecto citotoxico de tres materiales que se han utilizado para el tratamiento de la hipersensibilidad dental. Material y metodo: Estudio in-vitro. Los desensibilizantes dentinarios Clinpro (3M ESPE), Seal&Protect (Dentsply) yUltraEZ (Ultradent) fueron utilizados a concentraciones de 0,1; 0,05; 0,01 y 0,001 g/ml sobre cultivos celulares de fibroblastos gingivales humanos. Ademas, Clinpro y Seal&Protect se aplicaron a este cultivo celular como discos polimerizados. La toxicidad se evaluo a 24 y 48 horas mediante ensayo de viabilidad (MTT). El analisis estadistico para la viabilidad celular se realizo mediante ANOVA de dos vias seguido de analisis Tukey. La significancia estadistica se fijo al 5 por ciento. Resultados: Clinpro y Seal&Protect resultaron ser altamente toxicos a las 24 y 48 horas, alcanzando un 70 por ciento de toxicidad aconcentraciones superiores de 0,01 g/ml. Los discos polimerizadosde Clinpro y Seal&Protect fueron toxicos a 24 y 48 horas. UltraEZ produjo un aumento de la viabilidad celular entre un 46 por ciento y 67 por ciento a las 24 horas y entre un 8 por ciento y 45 por ciento a las 48 horas. El analisis estadistico mostro diferencias entreestos tres desensibilizantes al comparar la concentracion y su grupo control (p<0,05). Discusion: UltraEZ no tuvo efecto citotoxico y puede ser considerado como un material compatible y seguro para ser utilizado, mientras que Clinpro y Seal&Protect en su estado polimerizado y no polimerizado deberian ser utilizados con precaucion...
