Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Discipline
      Discipline
      Clear All
      Discipline
  • Is Peer Reviewed
      Is Peer Reviewed
      Clear All
      Is Peer Reviewed
  • Series Title
      Series Title
      Clear All
      Series Title
  • Reading Level
      Reading Level
      Clear All
      Reading Level
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
      More Filters
      Clear All
      More Filters
      Content Type
    • Item Type
    • Is Full-Text Available
    • Subject
    • Country Of Publication
    • Publisher
    • Source
    • Target Audience
    • Donor
    • Language
    • Place of Publication
    • Contributors
    • Location
1,069,329 result(s) for "Biomedical Technology."
Sort by:
Why rankings of biomedical image analysis competitions should be interpreted with care
International challenges have become the standard for validation of biomedical image analysis methods. Given their scientific impact, it is surprising that a critical analysis of common practices related to the organization of challenges has not yet been performed. In this paper, we present a comprehensive analysis of biomedical image analysis challenges conducted up to now. We demonstrate the importance of challenges and show that the lack of quality control has critical consequences. First, reproducibility and interpretation of the results is often hampered as only a fraction of relevant information is typically provided. Second, the rank of an algorithm is generally not robust to a number of variables such as the test data used for validation, the ranking scheme applied and the observers that make the reference annotations. To overcome these problems, we recommend best practice guidelines and define open research questions to be addressed in the future. Biomedical image analysis challenges have increased in the last ten years, but common practices have not been established yet. Here the authors analyze 150 recent challenges and demonstrate that outcome varies based on the metrics used and that limited information reporting hampers reproducibility.
‘Fit-for-purpose?’ – challenges and opportunities for applications of blockchain technology in the future of healthcare
Blockchain is a shared distributed digital ledger technology that can better facilitate data management, provenance and security, and has the potential to transform healthcare. Importantly, blockchain represents a data architecture, whose application goes far beyond Bitcoin – the cryptocurrency that relies on blockchain and has popularized the technology. In the health sector, blockchain is being aggressively explored by various stakeholders to optimize business processes, lower costs, improve patient outcomes, enhance compliance, and enable better use of healthcare-related data. However, critical in assessing whether blockchain can fulfill the hype of a technology characterized as ‘revolutionary’ and ‘disruptive’, is the need to ensure that blockchain design elements consider actual healthcare needs from the diverse perspectives of consumers, patients, providers, and regulators. In addition, answering the real needs of healthcare stakeholders, blockchain approaches must also be responsive to the unique challenges faced in healthcare compared to other sectors of the economy. In this sense, ensuring that a health blockchain is ‘fit-for-purpose’ is pivotal. This concept forms the basis for this article, where we share views from a multidisciplinary group of practitioners at the forefront of blockchain conceptualization, development, and deployment.
Biomedical microfluidic devices by using low-cost fabrication techniques: A review
One of the most popular methods to fabricate biomedical microfluidic devices is by using a soft-lithography technique. However, the fabrication of the moulds to produce microfluidic devices, such as SU-8 moulds, usually requires a cleanroom environment that can be quite costly. Therefore, many efforts have been made to develop low-cost alternatives for the fabrication of microstructures, avoiding the use of cleanroom facilities. Recently, low-cost techniques without cleanroom facilities that feature aspect ratios more than 20, for fabricating those SU-8 moulds have been gaining popularity among biomedical research community. In those techniques, Ultraviolet (UV) exposure equipment, commonly used in the Printed Circuit Board (PCB) industry, replaces the more expensive and less available Mask Aligner that has been used in the last 15 years for SU-8 patterning. Alternatively, non-lithographic low-cost techniques, due to their ability for large-scale production, have increased the interest of the industrial and research community to develop simple, rapid and low-cost microfluidic structures. These alternative techniques include Print and Peel methods (PAP), laserjet, solid ink, cutting plotters or micromilling, that use equipment available in almost all laboratories and offices. An example is the xurography technique that uses a cutting plotter machine and adhesive vinyl films to generate the master moulds to fabricate microfluidic channels. In this review, we present a selection of the most recent lithographic and non-lithographic low-cost techniques to fabricate microfluidic structures, focused on the features and limitations of each technique. Only microfabrication methods that do not require the use of cleanrooms are considered. Additionally, potential applications of these microfluidic devices in biomedical engineering are presented with some illustrative examples.
Technology of deep brain stimulation: current status and future directions
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a neurosurgical procedure that allows targeted circuit-based neuromodulation. DBS is a standard of care in Parkinson disease, essential tremor and dystonia, and is also under active investigation for other conditions linked to pathological circuitry, including major depressive disorder and Alzheimer disease. Modern DBS systems, borrowed from the cardiac field, consist of an intracranial electrode, an extension wire and a pulse generator, and have evolved slowly over the past two decades. Advances in engineering and imaging along with an improved understanding of brain disorders are poised to reshape how DBS is viewed and delivered to patients. Breakthroughs in electrode and battery designs, stimulation paradigms, closed-loop and on-demand stimulation, and sensing technologies are expected to enhance the efficacy and tolerability of DBS. In this Review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the technical development of DBS, from its origins to its future. Understanding the evolution of DBS technology helps put the currently available systems in perspective and allows us to predict the next major technological advances and hurdles in the field.Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a neurosurgical procedure that allows targeted circuit-based neuromodulation and has become a standard of care in a range of movement disorders. This Review discusses the evolution and current status of DBS technology and anticipates future advances.