This paper describes three different approaches for the implementation of an online signature verification system on a low-cost FPGA. The system is based on an algorithm, which operates on real numbers using the double-precision floating-point IEEE 754 format. The double-precision computations are replaced by simpler formats, without affecting the biometrics performance, in order to permit efficient implementations on low-cost FPGA families. The first approach is an embedded system based on MicroBlaze, a 32-bit soft-core microprocessor designed for Xilinx FPGAs, which can be configured by including a single-precision floating-point unit (FPU). The second implementation attaches a hardware accelerator to the embedded system to reduce the execution time on floating-point vectors. The last approach is a custom computing system, which is built from a large set of arithmetic circuits that replace the floating-point data with a more efficient representation based on fixed-point format. The latter system provides a very high runtime acceleration factor at the expense of using a large number of FPGA resources, a complex development cycle and no flexibility since it cannot be adapted to other biometric algorithms. By contrast, the first system provides just the opposite features, while the second approach is a mixed solution between both of them. The experimental results show that both the hardware accelerator and the custom computing system reduce the execution time by a factor ×7.6 and ×201 but increase the logic FPGA resources by a factor ×2.3 and ×5.2, respectively, in comparison with the MicroBlaze embedded system.
Objective: This study aimed to describe the characteristics of pediatric neurologists (PNs) in Latin America (LA) who attend to children and adolescents with epilepsy and convey to them the risk of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP). Methods: Personal data and details of discussion of SUDEP with families, including relevance of SUDEP disclosure, frequency of such communication, perceived benefits and risks of disclosure, extent of training received on such disclosure, and professional experience with SUDEP, were collected through an online survey of PNs from LA. Their personal experience in carrying out this conversation was obtained through responses to an open question, further used to identify the main barriers.Results: Of the 442 surveys received, 367 (83%) were analyzed. Most participants (73.8%) responded that the communication of SUDEP risk was relevant or very relevant; however, only 17.9% reported communicating it always or very frequently. Factors that increased the frequency of SUDEP communication included patients with higher levels of complexity (OR = 2.18, P = .003) and the physician's personal experience with SUDEP (OR = 2.305, P < .001). Direct questions from the family and avoiding scaring them about a rare outcome were the main motivations behind discussing and not discussing SUDEP, respectively. In the open question, respondents identified worries about the patient's ability to understand the information and cultural gaps as barriers. "Informing with the intention of improving adherence to treatment" and "establishing an empathic relationship" were significantly related. Further, the concept of "do not scare" was significantly related to "personal difficulties in discussing SUDEP." Significance: Although most PNs agree that communication about SUDEP is relevant, only a minority actually engages in it. Participants identified a lack of appropriate training in such communication as a barrier. A better understanding This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.