OCR Systems

OCR Systems, Inc., was an American computer hardware manufacturer and software publisher dedicated to optical character recognition technologies. The company's first product, the System 1000 in 1970, was used by numerous large corporations for bill processing and mail sorting. Following a series of pitfalls in the 1970s and early 1980s, founder Theodor Herzl Levine put the company in the hands of Gregory Boleslavsky and Vadim Brikman, the company's vice presidents and recent immigrants from the Soviet Ukraine, who were able to turn OCR System's fortunes around and expand its employee base. The company released the software-based OCR application ReadRight for DOS, later ported to Windows, in the late 1980s. Adobe Inc. bought the company in 1992. == History == OCR Systems was co-founded by Theodor Herzl Levine (c. 1923 – May 30, 2005). Levine served in the U.S. Army Signal Corps during World War II in the Solomon Islands, where he helped develop a sonar to find ejected pilots in the ocean. After the war, Levine spent 22 years at the University of Pennsylvania, earning his bachelor's degree in 1951, his master's degree in electrical engineering in 1957, and his doctorate in 1968. Alongside his studies, Levine taught statistics and calculus at Temple University, Rutgers University, La Salle University and Penn State Abington. Sometime in the 1960s, Levine was hired at Philco. He and two of his co-workers decided to form their own company dedicated to optical character recognition, founding OCR Systems in 1969 in Bensalem, Pennsylvania. OCR Systems's first product, the System 1000, was announced in 1970. OCR Systems entered a partnership with 3M to resell the System 1000 throughout the United States in March 1973. This was 3M's entry into the data entry field, managed by the company's Microfilm Products Division and accompanying 3M's suite of data retrieval systems. It soon found use among Texas Instruments, AT&T, Ricoh, Panasonic and Canon for bill processing and mail sorting. Later in the mid-1970s an unspecified Fortune 500 company reneged on a contract to distribute the System 1000; later still a Canadian company distributing the System 1000 in Canada went defunct. Both incidents led OCR Systems to go nearly bankrupt, although it eventually recovered. By the early 1980s, however, the company was almost insolvent. In 1983 Levine had only $8,000 in his savings and became bedridden with an illness. He left the company in the hands of Gregory Boleslavsky and Vadim Brikman, two Soviet Ukraine expats whom Levine had hired earlier in the 1980s. Boleslavsky was hired as a wire wrapper for the System 1000 and as a programmer and beta tester for ReadRight—a software package developed by Levine implementing patents from Nonlinear Technology, another OCR-centric company from Greenbelt, Maryland. Boleslavsky in turn recommended Brikman to Levine. The two soon became vice presidents of the company while Levine was bedridden; in Boleslavsky's case, he worked 14-hour work days for over half a year in pursuit of the title. The two presented OCR Systems' products to the National Computer Conference in Chicago, where they were massively popular. The company soon gained such clients as Allegheny Energy in Pennsylvania and the postal service of Belgium and received an influx of employees—mostly expats from Russia but also Poland and South Korea, as well as American-born workers. To accommodate the company's employee base, which had grown to over 30 in 1988, Levine moved OCR System's headquarters from Bensalem to the Masons Mill Business Park in Bryn Athyn. Chinon Industries of Japan signed an agreement with OCR Systems in 1987 to distribute OCR's ReadRight 1.0 software with Chinon's scanners, starting with their N-205 overhead scanner. In 1988, OCR opened their agreement to distribute ReadRight to other scanner manufacturers, including Canon, Hewlett-Packard, Skyworld, Taxan, Diamond Flower and Abaton. That year, the company posted a revenue of $3 million. OCR Systems extended their agreement with Chinon in 1989 and introduced version 2.0 of ReadRight. OCR Systems faced stiff competition in the software OCR market in the turn of the 1990s. The Toronto-based software firm Delrina signed a letter of intent to purchase the company in November 1991, expecting the deal to close in December and have OCR software available by Christmas. OCR was to receive $3 million worth of Delrina shares in a stock swap, but the deal collapsed in January 1992. Delrine later marketed its own Extended Character Recognition, or XCR, software package to compete with ReadRight. In July 1992, OCR Systems was purchased by Adobe Inc. for an undisclosed sum. == Products == === System 1000 === The System 1000 was based on the 16-bit Varian Data 620/i minicomputer with 4 KB of core memory. The system used the 620/i for controlling the paper feed, interpreting the format of the documents, the optical character recognition process itself, error detection, sequencing and output. The System was initially programmed to recognize 1428 OCR (used by Selectrics); IBM 407 print; and the full character sets of OCR-A, OCR-B and Farrington 7B; as well as optical marks and handwritten numbers. OCR Systems promised added compatibility with more fonts available down the line—per request—in 1970. The number of fonts supported was limited by the amount of core memory, which was expandable in 4 KB increments up to 32 KB. The System 1000 later supported generalized typewriter and photocopier fonts. The rest of the System 1000 comprised the document transport, one or more scanner elements, a CRT display and a Teletype Model 33 or 35. Pages are fed via friction with a rubber belt. Up to three lines could be scanned per document, while the rest of the scanned document could be laid out in any manner granted there was enough space around the fields to be read. The reader initially supported pages as small as 3.25 in by 3.5 in dimension (later supporting 2.6 in by 3.5 in utility cash stubs) all the way to the standard ANSI letter size (8.5 in by 11 in; later 8.5 in by 12 in as used in stock certificates). The initial System 1000 had a maximum throughput of 420 documents per minute per transport (later 500 documents per minute), contingent on document size and content. A feature unique to the System 1000 over other optical character recognition systems of the time was its ability to alert the operator when a field was unreadable or otherwise invalid. This feature, called Document Referral, placed the document in front of the operator and displayed a blank field on the screen of the included CRT monitor for manual re-entry via keyboard. Once input, data could be output to 7- or 9-track tape, paper tape, punched cards and other mass storage media or to System/360 mainframes for further processing. The complete System 1000 could be purchased for US$69,000. Options for renting were $1,800 per month on a three-year lease or $1,600 per month for five years. Computerworld wrote that it was less than half the cost of its competitors while more capable and user-friendly. Competing systems included the Recognition Equipment Retina, the Scan-Optics IC/20 and the Scan-Data 250/350. === ReadRight === ReadRight processes individual letters topographically: it breaks down the scanned letter into parts—strokes, curves, angles, ascenders and descenders—and follows a tree structure of letters broken down into these parts to determine the corresponding character code. ReadRight was entirely software-based, requiring no expansion card to work. Version 2.01, the last version released for DOS, runs in real mode in under 640 KB of RAM. OCR Systems released the Windows-only version 3.0 in 1991 while offering version 2.01 alongside it. The company unveiled a sister product, ReadRight Personal, dedicated to handheld scanners and for Windows only in October 1991. This version adds real-time scanning—each word is updated to the screen while lines are being scanned. ReadRight proper was later made a Windows-only product with version 3.1 in 1992. The inclusion of ReadRight 2.0 with Canon's IX-12F flatbed scanner led PC Magazine to award it an Editor's Choice rating in 1989. Despite this, reviewer Robert Kendall found qualification with ReadRight's ability to parse proportional typefaces such as Helvetica and Times New Roman. Mitt Jones of the same publication found version 2.01 to have improved its ability to read such typefaces and praised its ease of use and low resource intensiveness. Jones disliked the inability to handle uneven page paragraph column widths and graphics, noting that the manual recommended the user block out graphics with a Post-it Note. Version 3.1 for Windows received mixed reviews. Mike Heck of InfoWorld wrote that its "low cost and rich collection of features are hard to ignore" but rated its speed and accuracy average. Barry Simon of PC Magazine called it economical but inaccurate, unable to correct errors it did

Evolutionary robotics

Evolutionary robotics is an embodied approach to Artificial Intelligence (AI) in which robots are automatically designed using Darwinian principles of natural selection. The design of a robot, or a subsystem of a robot such as a neural controller, is optimized against a behavioral goal (e.g. run as fast as possible). Usually, designs are evaluated in simulations as fabricating thousands or millions of designs and testing them in the real world is prohibitively expensive in terms of time, money, and safety. An evolutionary robotics experiment starts with a population of randomly generated robot designs. The worst performing designs are discarded and replaced with mutations and/or combinations of the better designs. This evolutionary algorithm continues until a prespecified amount of time elapses or some target performance metric is surpassed. Evolutionary robotics methods are particularly useful for engineering machines that must operate in environments in which humans have limited intuition (nanoscale, space, etc.). Evolved simulated robots can also be used as scientific tools to generate new hypotheses in biology and cognitive science, and to test old hypothesis that require experiments that have proven difficult or impossible to carry out in reality. == History == In the early 1990s, two separate European groups demonstrated different approaches to the evolution of robot control systems. Dario Floreano and Francesco Mondada at EPFL evolved controllers for the Khepera robot. Adrian Thompson, Nick Jakobi, Dave Cliff, Inman Harvey, and Phil Husbands evolved controllers for a Gantry robot at the University of Sussex. However the body of these robots was presupposed before evolution. The first simulations of evolved robots were reported by Karl Sims and Jeffrey Ventrella of the MIT Media Lab, also in the early 1990s. However these so-called virtual creatures never left their simulated worlds. The first evolved robots to be built in reality were 3D-printed by Hod Lipson and Jordan Pollack at Brandeis University at the turn of the 21st century.

Hybrid intelligent system

Hybrid intelligent system denotes a software system which employs, in parallel, a combination of methods and techniques from artificial intelligence subfields, such as: Neuro-symbolic systems Neuro-fuzzy systems Hybrid connectionist-symbolic models Fuzzy expert systems Connectionist expert systems Evolutionary neural networks Genetic fuzzy systems Rough fuzzy hybridization Reinforcement learning with fuzzy, neural, or evolutionary methods as well as symbolic reasoning methods. From the cognitive science perspective, every natural intelligent system is hybrid because it performs mental operations on both the symbolic and subsymbolic levels. For the past few years, there has been an increasing discussion of the importance of A.I. Systems Integration. Based on notions that there have already been created simple and specific AI systems (such as systems for computer vision, speech synthesis, etc., or software that employs some of the models mentioned above) and now is the time for integration to create broad AI systems. Proponents of this approach are researchers such as Marvin Minsky, Ron Sun, Aaron Sloman, Angelo Dalli and Michael A. Arbib. An example hybrid is a hierarchical control system in which the lowest, reactive layers are sub-symbolic. The higher layers, having relaxed time constraints, are capable of reasoning from an abstract world model and performing planning (even by hybrid wisdom). Intelligent systems usually rely on hybrid reasoning processes, which include induction, deduction, abduction and reasoning by analogy.

AIXI

AIXI is a theoretical mathematical formalism for artificial general intelligence. It combines Solomonoff induction with sequential decision theory. AIXI was first proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000 and several results regarding AIXI are proved in Hutter's 2005 book Universal Artificial Intelligence. AIXI is a reinforcement learning (RL) agent. It maximizes the expected total rewards received from the environment. Intuitively, it simultaneously considers every computable hypothesis (or environment). In each time step, it looks at every possible program and evaluates how many rewards that program generates depending on the next action taken. The promised rewards are then weighted by the subjective belief that this program constitutes the true environment. This belief is computed from the length of the program: longer programs are considered less likely, in line with Occam's razor. AIXI then selects the action that has the highest expected total reward in the weighted sum of all these programs. == Etymology == According to Hutter, the word "AIXI" can have several interpretations. AIXI can stand for AI based on Solomonoff's distribution, denoted by ξ {\displaystyle \xi } (which is the Greek letter xi), or e.g. it can stand for AI "crossed" (X) with induction (I). There are other interpretations. == Definition == AIXI is a reinforcement learning agent that interacts with some stochastic and unknown but computable environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } . The interaction proceeds in time steps, from t = 1 {\displaystyle t=1} to t = m {\displaystyle t=m} , where m ∈ N {\displaystyle m\in \mathbb {N} } is the lifespan of the AIXI agent. At time step t, the agent chooses an action a t ∈ A {\displaystyle a_{t}\in {\mathcal {A}}} (e.g. a limb movement) and executes it in the environment, and the environment responds with a "percept" e t ∈ E = O × R {\displaystyle e_{t}\in {\mathcal {E}}={\mathcal {O}}\times \mathbb {R} } , which consists of an "observation" o t ∈ O {\displaystyle o_{t}\in {\mathcal {O}}} (e.g., a camera image) and a reward r t ∈ R {\displaystyle r_{t}\in \mathbb {R} } , distributed according to the conditional probability μ ( o t r t | a 1 o 1 r 1 . . . a t − 1 o t − 1 r t − 1 a t ) {\displaystyle \mu (o_{t}r_{t}|a_{1}o_{1}r_{1}...a_{t-1}o_{t-1}r_{t-1}a_{t})} , where a 1 o 1 r 1 . . . a t − 1 o t − 1 r t − 1 a t {\displaystyle a_{1}o_{1}r_{1}...a_{t-1}o_{t-1}r_{t-1}a_{t}} is the "history" of actions, observations and rewards. The environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } is thus mathematically represented as a probability distribution over "percepts" (observations and rewards) which depend on the full history, so there is no Markov assumption (as opposed to other RL algorithms). Note again that this probability distribution is unknown to the AIXI agent. Furthermore, note again that μ {\displaystyle \mu } is computable, that is, the observations and rewards received by the agent from the environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } can be computed by some program (which runs on a Turing machine), given the past actions of the AIXI agent. The only goal of the AIXI agent is to maximize ∑ t = 1 m r t {\displaystyle \sum _{t=1}^{m}r_{t}} , that is, the sum of rewards from time step 1 to m. The AIXI agent is associated with a stochastic policy π : ( A × E ) ∗ → A {\displaystyle \pi :({\mathcal {A}}\times {\mathcal {E}})^{}\rightarrow {\mathcal {A}}} , which is the function it uses to choose actions at every time step, where A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is the space of all possible actions that AIXI can take and E {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}} is the space of all possible "percepts" that can be produced by the environment. The environment (or probability distribution) μ {\displaystyle \mu } can also be thought of as a stochastic policy (which is a function): μ : ( A × E ) ∗ × A → E {\displaystyle \mu :({\mathcal {A}}\times {\mathcal {E}})^{}\times {\mathcal {A}}\rightarrow {\mathcal {E}}} , where the ∗ {\displaystyle } is the Kleene star operation. In general, at time step t {\displaystyle t} (which ranges from 1 to m), AIXI, having previously executed actions a 1 … a t − 1 {\displaystyle a_{1}\dots a_{t-1}} (which is often abbreviated in the literature as a < t {\displaystyle a_{

Manifold regularization

In machine learning, manifold regularization is a technique for using the shape of a dataset to constrain the functions that should be learned on that dataset. In many machine learning problems, the data to be learned do not cover the entire input space. For example, a facial recognition system may not need to classify any possible image, but only the subset of images that contain faces. The technique of manifold learning assumes that the relevant subset of data comes from a manifold, a mathematical structure with useful properties. The technique also assumes that the function to be learned is smooth: data with different labels are not likely to be close together, and so the labeling function should not change quickly in areas where there are likely to be many data points. Because of this assumption, a manifold regularization algorithm can use unlabeled data to inform where the learned function is allowed to change quickly and where it is not, using an extension of the technique of Tikhonov regularization. Manifold regularization algorithms can extend supervised learning algorithms in semi-supervised learning and transductive learning settings, where unlabeled data are available. The technique has been used for applications including medical imaging, geographical imaging, and object recognition. == Manifold regularizer == === Motivation === Manifold regularization is a type of regularization, a family of techniques that reduces overfitting and ensures that a problem is well-posed by penalizing complex solutions. In particular, manifold regularization extends the technique of Tikhonov regularization as applied to Reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces (RKHSs). Under standard Tikhonov regularization on RKHSs, a learning algorithm attempts to learn a function f {\displaystyle f} from among a hypothesis space of functions H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} . The hypothesis space is an RKHS, meaning that it is associated with a kernel K {\displaystyle K} , and so every candidate function f {\displaystyle f} has a norm ‖ f ‖ K {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{K}} , which represents the complexity of the candidate function in the hypothesis space. When the algorithm considers a candidate function, it takes its norm into account in order to penalize complex functions. Formally, given a set of labeled training data ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x ℓ , y ℓ ) {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{\ell },y_{\ell })} with x i ∈ X , y i ∈ Y {\displaystyle x_{i}\in X,y_{i}\in Y} and a loss function V {\displaystyle V} , a learning algorithm using Tikhonov regularization will attempt to solve the expression arg min f ∈ H 1 ℓ ∑ i = 1 ℓ V ( f ( x i ) , y i ) + γ ‖ f ‖ K 2 {\displaystyle {\underset {f\in {\mathcal {H}}}{\arg \!\min }}{\frac {1}{\ell }}\sum _{i=1}^{\ell }V(f(x_{i}),y_{i})+\gamma \left\|f\right\|_{K}^{2}} where γ {\displaystyle \gamma } is a hyperparameter that controls how much the algorithm will prefer simpler functions over functions that fit the data better. Manifold regularization adds a second regularization term, the intrinsic regularizer, to the ambient regularizer used in standard Tikhonov regularization. Under the manifold assumption in machine learning, the data in question do not come from the entire input space X {\displaystyle X} , but instead from a nonlinear manifold M ⊂ X {\displaystyle M\subset X} . The geometry of this manifold, the intrinsic space, is used to determine the regularization norm. === Laplacian norm === There are many possible choices for the intrinsic regularizer ‖ f ‖ I {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{I}} . Many natural choices involve the gradient on the manifold ∇ M {\displaystyle \nabla _{M}} , which can provide a measure of how smooth a target function is. A smooth function should change slowly where the input data are dense; that is, the gradient ∇ M f ( x ) {\displaystyle \nabla _{M}f(x)} should be small where the marginal probability density P X ( x ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{X}(x)} , the probability density of a randomly drawn data point appearing at x {\displaystyle x} , is large. This gives one appropriate choice for the intrinsic regularizer: ‖ f ‖ I 2 = ∫ x ∈ M ‖ ∇ M f ( x ) ‖ 2 d P X ( x ) {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{I}^{2}=\int _{x\in M}\left\|\nabla _{M}f(x)\right\|^{2}\,d{\mathcal {P}}_{X}(x)} In practice, this norm cannot be computed directly because the marginal distribution P X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{X}} is unknown, but it can be estimated from the provided data. === Graph-based approach of the Laplacian norm === When the distances between input points are interpreted as a graph, then the Laplacian matrix of the graph can help to estimate the marginal distribution. Suppose that the input data include ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } labeled examples (pairs of an input x {\displaystyle x} and a label y {\displaystyle y} ) and u {\displaystyle u} unlabeled examples (inputs without associated labels). Define W {\displaystyle W} to be a matrix of edge weights for a graph, where W i j {\displaystyle W_{ij}} is a similarity built from distance measure between the data points x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} and x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} (so that more close implies higher W i j {\displaystyle W_{ij}} ). Define D {\displaystyle D} to be a diagonal matrix with D i i = ∑ j = 1 ℓ + u W i j {\displaystyle D_{ii}=\sum _{j=1}^{\ell +u}W_{ij}} and L {\displaystyle L} to be the Laplacian matrix D − W {\displaystyle D-W} . Then, as the number of data points ℓ + u {\displaystyle \ell +u} increases, L {\displaystyle L} converges to the Laplace–Beltrami operator Δ M {\displaystyle \Delta _{M}} , which is the divergence of the gradient ∇ M {\displaystyle \nabla _{M}} . Then, if f {\displaystyle \mathbf {f} } is a vector of the values of f {\displaystyle f} at the data, f = [ f ( x 1 ) , … , f ( x l + u ) ] T {\displaystyle \mathbf {f} =[f(x_{1}),\ldots ,f(x_{l+u})]^{\mathrm {T} }} , the intrinsic norm can be estimated: ‖ f ‖ I 2 = 1 ( ℓ + u ) 2 f T L f {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{I}^{2}={\frac {1}{(\ell +u)^{2}}}\mathbf {f} ^{\mathrm {T} }L\mathbf {f} } As the number of data points ℓ + u {\displaystyle \ell +u} increases, this empirical definition of ‖ f ‖ I 2 {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{I}^{2}} converges to the definition when P X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{X}} is known. === Solving the regularization problem with graph-based approach === Using the weights γ A {\displaystyle \gamma _{A}} and γ I {\displaystyle \gamma _{I}} for the ambient and intrinsic regularizers, the final expression to be solved becomes: arg min f ∈ H 1 ℓ ∑ i = 1 ℓ V ( f ( x i ) , y i ) + γ A ‖ f ‖ K 2 + γ I ( ℓ + u ) 2 f T L f {\displaystyle {\underset {f\in {\mathcal {H}}}{\arg \!\min }}{\frac {1}{\ell }}\sum _{i=1}^{\ell }V(f(x_{i}),y_{i})+\gamma _{A}\left\|f\right\|_{K}^{2}+{\frac {\gamma _{I}}{(\ell +u)^{2}}}\mathbf {f} ^{\mathrm {T} }L\mathbf {f} } As with other kernel methods, H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} may be an infinite-dimensional space, so if the regularization expression cannot be solved explicitly, it is impossible to search the entire space for a solution. Instead, a representer theorem shows that under certain conditions on the choice of the norm ‖ f ‖ I {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{I}} , the optimal solution f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} must be a linear combination of the kernel centered at each of the input points: for some weights α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} , f ∗ ( x ) = ∑ i = 1 ℓ + u α i K ( x i , x ) {\displaystyle f^{}(x)=\sum _{i=1}^{\ell +u}\alpha _{i}K(x_{i},x)} Using this result, it is possible to search for the optimal solution f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} by searching the finite-dimensional space defined by the possible choices of α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} . === Functional approach of the Laplacian norm === The idea beyond the graph-Laplacian is to use neighbors to estimate the Laplacian. This method is akin to local averaging methods, that are known to scale poorly in high-dimensional problems. Indeed, the graph Laplacian is known to suffer from the curse of dimensionality. Luckily, it is possible to leverage expected smoothness of the function to estimate thanks to more advanced functional analysis. This method consists of estimating the Laplacian operator using derivatives of the kernel reading ∂ 1 , j K ( x i , x ) {\displaystyle \partial _{1,j}K(x_{i},x)} where ∂ 1 , j {\displaystyle \partial _{1,j}} denotes the partial derivatives according to the j-th coordinate of the first variable. This second approach to the Laplacian norm is to put in relation with meshfree methods, that contrast with the finite difference method in PDE. == Applications == Manifold regularization can extend a variety of algorithms that can be expressed using Tikhonov regularization, by choosing an appropriate loss function V {\displaystyle V} and hypothesis space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} . Two commonly used examples are the families of support vector machines and regularized least squares algorithm

Automated dispensing cabinet

An automated dispensing cabinet (ADC), also called a unit-based cabinet (UBC), automated dispensing device (ADD), or automated dispensing machine (ADM)[1], is a computerized medicine cabinet for hospitals and healthcare settings. ADCs allow medications to be stored and dispensed near the point of care while controlling and tracking drug distribution. == Overview == Hospital pharmacies have provided medications for patients by filling patient-specific cassettes of unit-dose medications that were then delivered to the nursing unit and stored in medication cabinets or carts. ADCs, originally designed for hospital use, were introduced in hospitals in the 1980s and have facilitated the transition to alternative delivery models and more decentralized medication distribution systems.[2] Implementing automated dispensing cabinets as part of a decentralized or hybrid medication distribution system can improve patient safety and the accountability of the inventory, streamline certain billing processes. However, in the 2000s, the technology began to be deployed into other care settings where medication doses were stored onsite, and higher security methods were needed to control inventory, access, and dispensing of each patient dose. Settings that now deploy ADCs include long-term care facilities, hospice, critical access hospitals, surgery centers, group homes, residential care facilities, rehab and psych environments, animal health, dental clinics, and nursing education simulation. These diverse care settings share a common need to safely store, account for, and dispense individual doses of medications, especially narcotics and high-value medications, at the point of care.[3] ADCs track user access and dispensed medications, and their use can improve control over medication inventory. The real-time inventory reports generated by many cabinets can simplify the filling process and help the pharmacy track expired drugs. Furthermore, by restricting individual drugs – such as high-risk medications and controlled substances – to unique drawers within the cabinet, overall inventory management, patient safety, and medication security can be improved. Automated dispensing cabinets allow the pharmacy department to profile physician orders before they are dispensed.[4] ADCs can also enable providers to record medication charges upon dispensing, reducing the billing paperwork the pharmacy is responsible for. In addition, nurses can note returned medications using the cabinets' computers, enabling direct credits to patients' accounts. Since automated cabinets can be located on the nursing unit floor, nursing have speedier access to a patient's medications. Also, shorter waiting time ensures improved patient comfort and care.[5] == Role of automated dispensing in healthcare == Automated dispensing is a pharmacy practice in which a device dispenses medications and fills prescriptions. ADCs, which can handle many different medications, are available from a number of manufacturers such as BD, ARxIUM, and Omnicell. Though members of the pharmacy community have been utilizing automation technology since the 1980s, companies are constantly improving ADCs to meet changing needs and health standards in the industry. Several goals can be met by implementing an automated product in a healthcare facility. Patient safety can be ensured with the use of ADC technology such as barcoding. Anesthesia ADCs in operating rooms and perioperative areas may include label printing to prevent mix-ups such as errors between morphine and hydromorphone, two different opioid analgesics that frequently get confused. These systems also communicate with the pharmacy and its information management system to track medications removed and support inventory replenishment. == Key features == ADCs are like automated teller machines whose specific technologies such as barcode scanning and clinical decision support can improve medication safety. Some have metal locking drawers for added security and some have automated single-dose dispensing to prevent the need for a blind count each time a controlled substance is accessed. Over the years, ADCs have been adapted to facilitate compliance with emerging regulatory requirements such as pharmacy review of medication orders and safe practice recommendations. ADCs incorporate advanced software and electronic interfaces to synthesize high-risk steps in the medication use process. These unit-based medication repositories provide computer-controlled storage, dispensation, tracking, and documentation of medication distribution in the resident care unit. Since automated dispensing cabinets are not located in the pharmacy, they are considered "decentralized" medication distribution systems. Instead, they can be found at the point of care on the resident care unit. Tracking of the stocking and distribution process can occur by interfacing the unit with a central pharmacy computer. These cabinets can also be interfaced with other external databases such as resident profiles, the facility's admission/discharge/transfer system, and billing systems. Most ADC providers offer scalable systems since several important factors vary widely by facility such as budget, physical room size, patient population/demographics, type of healthcare facility, etc.

Organoid intelligence

Organoid intelligence (OI) is an emerging field of study in computer science and biology that develops and studies biological wetware computing using 3D cultures of human brain cells (or brain organoids) and brain-machine interface technologies. Such technologies may be referred to as OIs or the nervous filesystem. Organoid intelligent computer systems can be an example of biohybrid systems. == Differences with non-organic computing == As opposed to traditional non-organic silicon-based approaches, OI seeks to use lab-grown cerebral organoids to serve as "biological hardware". While these structures are still far from being able to think like a regular human brain and do not yet possess strong computing capabilities, OI research currently offers the potential to improve the understanding of brain development, learning and memory, potentially finding treatments for neurological disorders such as dementia. Thomas Hartung, a professor from Johns Hopkins University, argued in 2023 that "while silicon-based computers are certainly better with numbers, brains are better at learning." He noted that transistor density in computer chip may be approaching its limits, whereas brains, being wired differently, are more energy-efficient and can store large amounts of information. Some researchers claim that even though human brains are slower than machines at processing simple information, they are far better at processing complex information as brains can deal with fewer and more uncertain data, perform both sequential and parallel processing, being highly heterogenous, use incomplete datasets, and is said to outperform non-organic machines in decision-making. Training OIs involve the process of biological learning (BL) as opposed to machine learning (ML) for AIs. == Bioinformatics in OI == OI generates complex biological data, necessitating sophisticated methods for processing and analysis. Bioinformatics provides the tools and techniques to decipher raw data, uncovering the patterns and insights. Researchers have developed a platform named Neuroplatform for experimenting remotely with brain organoids via an API. == Intended functions == Brain-inspired computing hardware aims to emulate the structure and working principles of the brain and could be used to address current limitations in AI technologies. However, brain-inspired silicon chips are still limited in their ability to fully mimic brain function, as most examples are built on digital electronic principles. One study performed OI computation (which they termed Brainoware) by sending and receiving information from the brain organoid using a high-density multielectrode array. By applying spatiotemporal electrical stimulation, nonlinear dynamics, and fading memory properties, as well as unsupervised learning from training data by reshaping the organoid functional connectivity, the study showed the potential of this technology by using it for speech recognition and nonlinear equation prediction in a reservoir computing framework. == Ethical concerns == While researchers are hoping to use OI and biological computing to complement traditional silicon-based computing, there are also questions about the ethics of such an approach. Concerns include the possibility that an organoid could develop sentience or consciousness, and the question of the relationship between a stem cell donor (for growing the organoid) and the respective OI system.