HP provides the DMIFIT and WNDMIFIT tools for re-flashing the DMI region:This application use to Update Hp Laptop and Desktop Machine Information like Serial number, SKU (Product Number), CT number , UUID and Build Version etc.
DMI Tools Version NbDmifit 1.0B DownloadDMI Tools Version NbDmifit 1.1C DownloadDMI Tools Version NbDmifit 1.1D DownloadDMI Tools Version NbDmifit 1.1E DownloadDMI Tools Version NbDmifit 1.1F DownloadDMI Tools Version NbDmifit 1.14B DownloadDMI Tools Version NbDmifit 1.14D DownloadDMI Tools Version NbDmifit 1.15 DownloadDMI Tools Version NbDmifit 1.18 DownloadDMI Tools Version NbDmifit 1.19 DownloadDMI Tools Version NbDmifit 2.0A DownloadDMI Tools Version NbDmifit 2.0E DownloadDMI Tools Version NbDmifit 2.0F DownloadDMI Tools Version NbDmifit 2.02 DownloadDMI Tools Version NbDmifit 2.03 DownloadDMI Tools Version NbDmifit 2.05 DownloadDMI Tools Version NbDmifit 2.06 DownloadDMI Tools Version NbDmifit 2.07 DownloadDMI Tools Version NbDmifit 2.08 DownloadDMI Tools Version NbDmifit 2.09 DownloadDMI Tools Version NbDmifit 2.10 DownloadDMI Tools Version NbDmifit 2.12 DownloadDMI Tools Version NbDmifit 2.13 DownloadDMI Tools Version NbDmifit 2.14 Download
lge tool version 2.07 download
Download Zip: https://cinurl.com/2vJTxY
This blog post demonstrates how to use the MariaDB JDBC driver, known as MariaDB Connector/J, to connect to an Amazon Aurora cluster. In this post, we use the automatic failover capability of the connector to switch rapidly and seamlessly between master and replica in a failover situation. You can download MariaDB Connector/J from the MariaDB site.
To use DBeaver, open the tool and create a new connection. For the connection type, choose MariaDB under AWS and fill out the requested information. For guidance, see the screenshot following.
Next, check the DBeaver tool to verify that a table has been created. From the screenshot below, we can now see a new table, VENDORS, under our auroradbtest DB with three columns (name, CEO and VAT_Number).
A projector's distance from a screen andthe size of the image it produces are proportional to each other based on the optics of the lens. As you increase the distance between the projectorand a screen the image will also increase. If your projector has a zoom lens, the lens can be adjusted to change the size of the screen image without changingthe distance of the projector. Since each projector lens is different, an online projection calculator tool will help you calculate the size of an imageon a screen relative to how far the projector is placed from screen.
The LCR-6000 series, a compact LCR meter with diversified and abundant features, is an excellent tool for various application stages of passive components, including R&D, engineering testing, incoming inspection, etc., or the production and sorting of passive components.
Each series of in-vivo and ex-vivo images were manually segmented in Seg3D2, an Insight Segmentation and Registration Toolkit (ITK, ) based tool, by a single observer. On the in-vivo imaging papillary muscles were included in the LV cavity segmentation if there was contrast between the papillary muscle body and the endocardial surface, and otherwise they were included in the LV myocardial segmentation. On the ex-vivo imaging, papillary muscles were also included in the LV cavity segmentation when a rim of contrast was evident between the muscle body and the LV wall, in order to consistently identify papillary muscle that would have been included in the LV cavity segmentation on the in-vivo imaging, despite the fact that in the ex-vivo condition it was pushed against the LV wall by the scaffold (illustrated in Additional file 1). The in-vivo and the ex-vivo segmentations were terminated at a circular disc in the MV plane. On the in-vivo imaging, scar was segmented according to a full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) strategy [16] followed by a connected component filter with seeds placed in clearly enhancing regions of myocardium within the vascular territory of the infarct.
Non-rigid image-based co-registration was performed on manually segmented binary data. Segmentations and images were exported from Matlab to the Neuroimaging Informatics Technology Initiative (NIfTI) format. The ex-vivo segmentations were downsampled to match the resolution of the in-vivo segmentations. In-vivo and downsampled ex-vivo segmentations were imported into RView, a Medical Image Registration Toolkit (MIRTK, ) based tool, for visualisation and selection of landmarks [19]. Landmarks were selected on the in-vivo segmentation and ex-vivo segmentations corresponding to the identical anatomical landmarks chosen for the mesh-based registration. Following an initial landmark based registration, segmentations underwent automatic rigid, followed by affine and then non-rigid registration [20] using the Image Registration Toolkit (MIRTK) library [20] in a process in a process that has previously demonstrated excellent accuracy [21].
Data from ex-vivo CMR has played a crucial role in the validation of in-vivo CMR imaging, facilitating its widespread adoption as a tool for assessing the accuracy of in-vivo structural and functional myocardial imaging [1, 2, 38]. There is an expanding role for ex-vivo CMR in the investigation of the local structural basis for observed physiological phenomena, where it has been used to establish thresholds for the interpretation of in-vivo electrogram voltage data [23], which contribute to the identification of appropriate ablation targets during ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation [39]. Ex-vivo CMR is the principle modality used to generate high resolution biophysical models. These models have been used to predict successful ablation targets for the treatment of post-MI VT [40] and been proposed as a basis for interpolating clinical resolution imaging to generate higher resolution estimations of local scar architecture [41], with the goal of translating the insight from biophysical models to clinical ablation procedures [42]. The accuracy of these results depend on matching the global 3D structure of the ventricle in regions of healthy myocardium as well as scar. The proposed co-registration strategy was successful in matching the volume and shape of the LV cavity, myocardium and scar between in-vivo and ex-vivo data and may thus provide a novel avenue to improve the accuracy of these results with potential significant pre-clinical and clinical impact.
This study has several limitations. In the in-vivo condition the papillary muscles are within the LV blood pool, while in the ex-vivo condition they are pushed against the LV endocardial wall by the printed insert, because the segmentation method used for the printed insert does not account for portion of the blood pool between the papillary muscle and the endocardial LV surface in-vivo. This is likely to have introduced a discrepancy between the LV cavity shape in the in-vivo and ex-vivo conditions. We believe the impact of this would have been small due to the proximity of the papillary muscles to the endocardial surface in-vivo and note that there was not a clear indication of more pronounced shape changes in this region. A more complex in-vivo segmentation process for design of the printed insert could be considered in future to address this limitation of the study. The study involved comparing the LV morphology between the in-vivo and ex-vivo condition, however different imaging sequences were used for each. This permitted acquisition of higher resolution ex-vivo imaging data but introduced the confounding effect of differences in the imaging sequences to the assessment of registration. The impact of the different imaging sequences on the blood pool and myocardial segmentation should be minimal as these are unambiguously defined in both data sets. Furthermore, prior to registration the ex-vivo imaging was resampled to the resolution of the in-vivo imaging data to minimize the impact of differences in image resolution on the comparison between the data sets. The impact of the differences in imaging sequence on scar segmentation is more challenging to establish. In addition, no consensus exists for the best strategy to threshold ex-vivo CMR images for the identification of scar. A simple and objective strategy for scar thresholding in the ex-vivo condition was selected to maintain consistency but may have contributed to small differences in scar assessment between the in-vivo to ex-vivo conditions. The correlation between scar volume between the in-vivo and ex-vivo data indicates that this resulted in relatively minor differences between tissue identified as scar between the two data sets, but the overall impact of differences in the imaging sequences acquired in the ex-vivo and in-vivo conditions remains a potentially significant confounding factor. Despite the printed scaffold, there was significant shrinkage of the LV cavity and tissue thickening in the healthy myocardium prior to the non-rigid registration step. We hypothesize that pressurizing the flexible 3D printed scaffold to reach LVEDP and the application of an excitation-contraction uncoupler [43] may further reduce the LV cavity reduction during ex-vivo imaging and represent a potentially valuable avenue for future work. There was no direct comparison between ex-vivo imaging acquired with and without the 3D printed scaffold, due to the time limitation during which ex-vivo imaging can be acquired, but the comparison with separately acquired ex-vivo imaging without the use of a scaffold indicates the improvement in the relationship between myocardial and LV cavity volumes resulting from the use of the scaffold. Finally, the process of segmentation and image registration uses three separate computational libraries, each chosen for the advantages offered by specific features within the library. While successful, this has resulted in a complex process of registration using multiple tools. This process could be simplified in future studies by development of a single interface with access to multiple libraries. 2ff7e9595c
Comments