ABSTRACT
We are proposing an IoT-based social distancing device as a preventive measure to COVID-19. It uses NodeMCU in conjunction with ultrasonic sensor temperature sensor, while vibrator buzzer is used for an alarming mechanism. The ultrasonic sensor is used to obtain higher accuracy as it uses LOS principle to measure the distance. The alarm will be raised whenever measured distance is found to be less than six feet. Temperature sensor is used to alert the user to isolate them if their body temperature goes above 102 °F, thereby decreasing the transmission possibility of virus in case he is infected with the virus. © 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
ABSTRACT
In these intense COVID-multiple times, there is a need to recognize if an individual is wearing a face mask or not to ensure himself just as others around. Making a protected situation is at the head of everybody's psyche as we get ready to open offices once more. Measures must be taken to secure those returning to work;to help keep them and their families liberated from hurt. New approaches are being organized each day to meet guidelines and HR strategies. Face Mask Detection logical empowers office proprietors to realize who enters their structures without a necessary face mask. Face Mask Detection System can be used at airports to detect non-cover inspectors. It can be used effectively on office premises to see if representatives are complying with occupational safety regulations. Emergency clinics can check whether its employees wear a mask during their working day or not. Numerous new calculations are being formulated utilizing convolutional models to make the calculation as exact as could reasonably be expected. These convolutional structures have made it conceivable to separate even the pixel subtleties. These frameworks can recognize people without mask utilizing their transferred pictures. © 2022 IEEE.
ABSTRACT
Background and aims: We conducted TOP-PRO-study, a double-blind RCT, to know whether propranolol is as efficacious as topiramate for the prevention of CM. In this paper, we report the secondary efficacy outcomes. Primary efficacy outcome showing the non-inferiority of propranolol have been described in another paper. Methods: CM patients aged above 18 years and less than 65 years of age, not on any preventive treatment were randomly allocated to receive topiramate (100 mg/day) or propranolol (160 mg/day). Secondary outcomes were mean change per 28 days at the end of 24 weeks compared to baseline in headache days, acute migraine treatment (AMT) days, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, headache impact-6 (HIT-6) scores, migraine specific quality of life (MSQOL) score and achievement of more than 50% reduction in headache days. Results: COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown halted the recruitment before the trial reached the planned sample size of 244. Of the 175 randomized patients, 95 (topiramate 46 and propranolol 49) completed the trial. The two groups were matched in terms of age, sex and baseline headache parameters. At the end of 24 weeks, both groups showed similar mean improvements in headache days per 28 days (−7.7 vs −7.8;p = 0.928), >50% responder rate (32.6% vs 34.7%), AMT days (−6.7 vs −7.0;p = 0.835), VAS score (−1.7 vs −2.2;p = 0.355), HIT-6 score (−5.2 vs −7.3;p = 0.153), MSQOL score (−5.8 vs −9.3;p = 0.098). Conclusions: Propranolol was as efficacious as topiramate for the prevention of CM as assessed by multiple secondary outcome parameters. (Academic study: Clinical Trials Registry-India CTRI/2019/05/018997).
ABSTRACT
Background and aims: Except for topiramate, oral preventive treatment for chronic migraine (CM) lacks credible evidence. We conducted TOP-PRO-study, a double-blind RCT, to know whether propranolol is as efficacious (non-inferior) and safe as topiramate for the prevention of CM. Methods: CM patients aged above 18 years and less than 65 years of age, not on any preventive treatment were randomly allocated to receive topiramate (100 mg/day) or propranolol (160 mg/day). The primary efficacy outcome was change in migraine days per 28 days at the end of 24 weeks from baseline. A mean difference of 1.5 days per four weeks was chosen as the cut-off delta value. Safety was also assessed. Results: COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown halted the recruitment before the trial reached the planned sample size of 244. Of the 175 randomized patients, 95 (topiramate 46 and propranolol 49) completed the trial. At baseline, mean (± SD) migraine days were 17.3 ± 6.7 vs 17.6 ± 6.6 days for patients in the topiramate and propranolol group respectively. The mean migraine days change was −5.29 ± 1.17 vs −7.28 ± 1.14 days (p = 0.226) for topiramate and propranolol groups respectively. Propranolol was found to be non-inferior and not superior to topiramate (point estimate of −1.99 with a CI of −5.23 to 1.25 days). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. Conclusions: Our study found that propranolol was non-inferior, non-superior to topiramate, and equally safe for the preventive treatment of CM. (Academic study: Clinical Trials Registry-India CTRI/2019/05/018997).