A Comparison Study between Traditional and Deep-Reinforcement-Learning-Based Algorithms for Indoor Autonomous Navigation in Dynamic Scenarios.

At the beginning of a project or research that involves the issue of autonomous navigation of mobile robots, a decision must be made about working with traditional control algorithms or algorithms based on artificial intelligence. This decision is not usually easy, as the computational capacity of the robot, the availability of information through its sensory systems and the characteristics of the environment must be taken into consideration. For this reason, this work focuses on a review of different autonomous-navigation algorithms applied to mobile robots, from which the most suitable ones have been identified for the cases in which the robot must navigate in dynamic environments. Based on the identified algorithms, a comparison of these traditional and DRL-based algorithms was made, using a robotic platform to evaluate their performance, identify their advantages and disadvantages and provide a recommendation for their use, according to the development requirements of the robot. The algorithms selected were DWA, TEB, CADRL and SAC, and the results show that-according to the application and the robot's characteristics-it is recommended to use each of them, based on different conditions.

Comparison of benazepril and losartan on endothelial function and vascular stiffness in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension: A randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of benazepril and losartan on endothelial function and vascular stiffness, in patients with diabetes mellitus and hypertension. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included hypertensive diabetic patients with an office systolic blood pressure (BP) ⩾ 130 mmHg and/or diastolic BP ⩾ 80 mmHg. Patients were rolled over to amlodipine for 6 weeks, then we performed C-reactive protein assays, BP measurement and vascular tests; next, patients were randomized to benazepril or losartan. The tests were repeated after 12 weeks. RESULTS: We randomized 14 patients to benazepril and 16 to losartan. There were no differences in systolic (139 versus 134 mmHg, p = 0.618) and diastolic (82 versus 80 mmHg, p = 0.950) BP at the end of the study. C-reactive protein values were lower in the benazepril group (0.38 versus 0.42 mg/dl, p = 0.020). There was a slightly higher flow-mediated vasodilation (FMD) response in the benazepril group (45% increase, p = 0.057) than in the losartan group (19% increase, p = 0.132). Both central systolic BP (129 versus 123 mmHg, p = 0.934) and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) (8.5 versus 8.5 m/s, p = 0.280) were the same between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Hypertensive diabetic patients using benazepril had a greater reduction in C-reactive protein, and a slight improvement in FMD, than those taking losartan.

Perceptions of barriers to cardiac rehabilitation use in Brazil.

UNLABELLED: Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are the leading cause of mortality in middle-income countries, such as Brazil. However, given the diversity in health care systems in Brazil, access to proven services, such as cardiac rehabilitation (CR), varies widely. PURPOSE: To describe and compare multilevel barriers to CR enrollment and participation in three Brazilian cohorts: (1) cardiac outpatients not attending CR (public or private system); (2) cardiac outpatients paying for CR; and (3) residents at high-risk of CVD with access to a free comprehensive exercise program but not making use of the program. METHODS: Brazilian residents from two cities were invited to participate - Florianopolis, an urban center; and Luzerna, a rural center. Respondents completed a survey including the Cardiac Rehabilitation Barriers Scale. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare barriers between cohorts cross-sectionally. RESULTS: Six hundred twenty-eight Brazilians consented to participate: 237 (37.7%) from Florianopolis, of which 139 (22.1%) participated in CR; and 391 (62.3%) from Luzerna. The mean total CR barriers for the sample were 1.66 ± 0.6 and differed significantly by cohort (P < 0.001). CR nonattendees from Florianopolis (eg, distance and not knowing about CR) and participants from Luzerna (eg, work and family responsibilities) reported significantly higher barriers than CR attendees from Florianopolis. CONCLUSION: CR nonattendees reported significantly greater barriers than CR attendees. It is hoped that the provision of CR will increase, and that the development of the programs will be in a manner which mitigates the chief barriers identified herein.