This paper describes the development of a mobile placement for balancing. A PID controller is used for two-wheel balancing platform to facilitate the testing of controlling the trajectory of the robot. The Fuzzy Controller autonomous mobile applications. Two-wheeled platforms offer Platform [3] uses the same basic type of sensors as the CIIPS the benefits of increased stability for tall robots with a smaller X footprint, resulting in greater agility. The integration of software Platform. However it implements a fuzzy controller for and hardware is an important aspect of the design, as well as the motion control of the platform which does not require a implementation of reference trajectory controllers. Sensors to precise model of the system. Both these platforms are built on measure the speed, tilt angle and tilt rate of the platform are a small scale and are used primarily for testing the controllers. incorporated with two embedded PCs. The first PC provides control commands to the system based on MATLAB andThe T-WIP Robot described in [4] also uses wheel Simulink and the second PC is responsible for implementing encoders for sensing the speed of the platform. In addition it advanced autonomous applications such as people following and uses a gyroscope to obtain the tilt angle and then infers the tilt obstacle avoidance using 'Player', a well known robot software rate in software. A pole-placement designed balancing interface used for robotics research. The LQR controller is tuned controller with a PID controller for heading (trajectory control) to yield better closed-loop performance and tested with the is

Background: It is generally perceived that sample sizes of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have increased over the years, particularly in specialties such as cardiology, with a robust evidence base. The aim of this study was to analyze temporal trends in sample sizes of RCTs in cardiology journals compared to other specialties. Methods: Abstracts of RCTs involving humans from PubMed for 1970-2013 were analyzed using a digital search algorithm. Sample sizes of studies were extracted from each abstract. Date of publication and journal name were collected. Journals from several medical subspecialties were selected for comparison, using the journal impact factor as a measure of clinical relevance. Sample sizes of studies in 1990 were compared to 2010 for each of the journals using the Mann-Whitney U test. Graphical comparisons of sample size trends are presented. Results: 272,054 abstracts of human RCTs were identified. Median sample sizes for the years 1990 and 2010 is shown in table 1. The median sample size for all RCTs published in Circulation was 99 subjects per study in 1990, increasing to 630 subjects per study in 2010 (p < 0.01). All cardiology journals had a significant increase in study sample size over the 20 year period, as did the multispecialty journals (JAMA, NEJM, Lancet). In contrast, only a few non-cardiology specialty journals published studies with increasing sample sizes (table 1). Figure 1 shows the sample size trend for 1970-2013. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates a dramatic temporal trend of increasing sample sizes in RCTs in cardiology compared to other specialties. Since sample size is estimated based on the effect size studied, one explanation for this observation is that the more obvious larger effects have been previously elucidated, leaving only smaller associations to be studied. This requires increasing resources, highlighting the importance of alternate study designs and collaborative registries to develop a cost effective evidence base.