Search

espanolEl seguimiento de trayectorias por parte de vehiculos aereos no tripulados trae consigo varias ventajas que pueden llevarse a aplicaciones que van desde la mensajeria hasta la agricultura. Sin embargo, esto involucra diferentes desafios dependiendo de la forma como se realice; particularmente en el caso del seguimiento de trayectorias haciendo uso de la vision artificial. Este articulo describe el diseno, la simulacion y la implementacion de un algoritmo simple para el seguimiento de una trayectoria a traves de la vision artificial, que permite el seguimiento de un dron y su aterrizaje en un punto deseado. EnglishThe trajectory following performed by unmanned aerial vehicles has several advantages that can be taken to several applications, going from package delivery to agriculture. However, this involves several challenges depending on the way the following is performed, particularly in the case of trajectory following by using computer vision. In here we will show the design, the simulation and the implementation of a simple algorithm for trajectory following by using computer vision, this algorithm will be executed on a drone that will arrive into a wished point.

95 Background: mCRPC remains an incurable disease with unmet need for improved therapies. PARP inhibition has demonstrated antitumor activity, and preclinical studies suggest synergy between PARP and AKT inhibition. This phase Ib trial (NCT03840200) sought to determine the maximum tolerated dose of PARP inhibitor rucaparib (ruca) with AKT inhibitor ipatasertib (ipat) and explore early safety and efficacy in patients (pts) with mCRPC. Methods: The study had 2 parts: a part 1 dose-escalation phase (cohort [C]1: ipat 300 mg QD + ruca 400 mg BID; C2a: ipat 300 mg QD + ruca 600 mg BID; C2b ipat 400 mg QD + ruca 400 mg BID; C3: ipat 400 mg QD + ruca 600 mg BID) in unselected pts with mCRPC or advanced breast or ovarian cancer, and a Part 2 dose-expansion phase in pts with mCRPC whose previous androgen deprivation therapy failed. The primary safety endpoints were AEs and dose-limiting toxicities, with the goal of identifying a recommended phase II dose (RP2D). The primary efficacy endpoint was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (PSA reduction of ≥ 50%) in pts with mCRPC. Secondary efficacy endpoints included ORR per RECIST 1.1, radiographic PFS (rPFS) per Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 and OS in pts with mCRPC. We assessed homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), PIK3CA/ AKT1/ PTEN status and other alterations by next-generation sequencing. Results: Part 1 enrolled 21 pts: 17 with mCRPC, 3 with ovarian cancer and 1 with breast cancer (C1 [n=8], C2a [n=6] and C2b [n=7], C3 [not opened]). Ipat 400 mg QD + ruca 400 mg BID was the selected RP2D. 30 pts enrolled in Part 2, so 37 pts with mCRPC (C2b + Part 2) received the RP2D (median follow-up 93 days). All grade AEs occurred in 37 pts (100%), serious AEs in 8 pts (22%) and AEs leading to treatment modification in 26 pts (70%). The most frequent AEs (all grade and grade 3, respectively) were diarrhea (35 [95%] and 2 [5%]); asthenia (24 [65%] and 4 [11%]); and nausea (24 [65%] and 2 [5%]). There was 1 grade 4 AE (anemia) and no grade 5 AEs. See the table for efficacy data. In biomarker subgroups, the PSA response rate was 50% (3/6) in pts with HRD tumors vs 25% (4/16) in pts with HR-proficient tumors, and 14% (1/7) vs 40% (6/15) in pts with PIK3CA/ AKT1/ PTEN–altered or intact tumors, respectively. Conclusions: The combination of ipat and ruca was well tolerated but did not show clinically relevant antitumor activity in pts with mCRPC, including in predefined biomarker subpopulations. Clinical trial information: NCT03840200. [Table: see text]

This article shows the behavior of several controllers supplemented with an Active Disturbance Rejection Control (ADRC) and their respective performance when facing a nonlinear plant with uncertainties in its parameters. In addition the performance is tested before two types of disturbances, a step disturbance which also modifies the parameters of the plant and an impulse disturbance. The comparison is made with a PI+D controller, a Sliding Mode Control (SMC) and an Integral Generalized Proportional (GPI).