OBJECTIVE: In this article, we study the robotic kitting system with a Robotic Mounted Rail Arm System (RMRAS), which travels narrowly to choose the elements.
RESULTS: The objective is to evaluate the efficiency of a robotic kitting system in cycle times through modeling of the elementary kitting operations that the robot performs (pick and room, move, change tools, etc.). The experimental results show that the proposed method enhances the performance and efficiency ratio when compared to other existing methods.
CONCLUSION: This study with the manufacturer can help him assess the robotic area performance in a given design (layout and picking a policy, etc.) as part of an ongoing project on automation of kitting operations.
METHOD: To overcome the limitation, the use of artificial intelligence along with technical tools has been extensively investigated for AD diagnosis. For developing a promising artificial intelligence strategy that can diagnose AD early, it is critical to supervise neuropsychological outcomes and imaging-based readouts with a proper clinical review.
CONCLUSION: Profound knowledge, a large data pool, and detailed investigations are required for the successful implementation of this tool. This review will enlighten various aspects of early diagnosis of AD using artificial intelligence.
METHOD: Two large datasets, including 1110 3D CT images, were split into five segments of 20% each. Each dataset's first 20% segment was separated as a holdout test set. 3D-CNN training was performed with the remaining 80% from each dataset. Two small external datasets were also used to independently evaluate the trained models.
RESULTS: The total combination of 80% of each dataset has an accuracy of 91% on Iranmehr and 83% on Moscow holdout test datasets. Results indicated that 80% of the primary datasets are adequate for fully training a model. The additional fine-tuning using 40% of a secondary dataset helps the model generalize to a third, unseen dataset. The highest accuracy achieved through transfer learning was 85% on LDCT dataset and 83% on Iranmehr holdout test sets when retrained on 80% of Iranmehr dataset.
CONCLUSION: While the total combination of both datasets produced the best results, different combinations and transfer learning still produced generalizable results. Adopting the proposed methodology may help to obtain satisfactory results in the case of limited external datasets.
OBJECTIVE: To derive a single algorithm using deep learning and machine learning for the prediction and identification of factors associated with in-hospital mortality in Asian patients with ACS and to compare performance to a conventional risk score.
METHODS: The Malaysian National Cardiovascular Disease Database (NCVD) registry, is a multi-ethnic, heterogeneous database spanning from 2006-2017. It was used for in-hospital mortality model development with 54 variables considered for patients with STEMI and Non-STEMI (NSTEMI). Mortality prediction was analyzed using feature selection methods with machine learning algorithms. Deep learning algorithm using features selected from machine learning was compared to Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score.
RESULTS: A total of 68528 patients were included in the analysis. Deep learning models constructed using all features and selected features from machine learning resulted in higher performance than machine learning and TIMI risk score (p < 0.0001 for all). The best model in this study is the combination of features selected from the SVM algorithm with a deep learning classifier. The DL (SVM selected var) algorithm demonstrated the highest predictive performance with the least number of predictors (14 predictors) for in-hospital prediction of STEMI patients (AUC = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.95-0.96). In NSTEMI in-hospital prediction, DL (RF selected var) (AUC = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.95-0.96, reported slightly higher AUC compared to DL (SVM selected var) (AUC = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.94-0.95). There was no significant difference between DL (SVM selected var) algorithm and DL (RF selected var) algorithm (p = 0.5). When compared to the DL (SVM selected var) model, the TIMI score underestimates patients' risk of mortality. TIMI risk score correctly identified 13.08% of the high-risk patient's non-survival vs 24.7% for the DL model and 4.65% vs 19.7% of the high-risk patient's non-survival for NSTEMI. Age, heart rate, Killip class, cardiac catheterization, oral hypoglycemia use and antiarrhythmic agent were found to be common predictors of in-hospital mortality across all ML feature selection models in this study. The final algorithm was converted into an online tool with a database for continuous data archiving for prospective validation.
CONCLUSIONS: ACS patients were better classified using a combination of machine learning and deep learning in a multi-ethnic Asian population when compared to TIMI scoring. Machine learning enables the identification of distinct factors in individual Asian populations to improve mortality prediction. Continuous testing and validation will allow for better risk stratification in the future, potentially altering management and outcomes.