Single-stage and two-stage total failure-based group-sampling plans for the Weibull distribution under neutrosophic statistics

If the sample or population has vague, inaccurate, unidentified, deficient, indecisive, or fuzzy data, then the available sampling plans could not be suitable to use for decision-making. In this article, an improved group-sampling plan based on time truncated life tests for Weibull distribution under neutrosophic statistics (NS) has been developed. We developed improved single and double group-sampling plans based on the NS. The proposed design neutrosophic plan parameters are obtained by satisfying both producer’s and consumer’s risks simultaneously under neutrosophic optimization solution. Tables are constructed for the selected shape parameter of Weibull distribution and various combinations of neutrosophic group size. The efficiency of the proposed group-sampling plan under the neutrosophic statistical interval method is also compared with the crisp method grouped sampling plan under classical statistics.

A Randomized Double-Blind Comparison of the Double-Space Technique versus the Single-Space Technique in Combined Spinal-Epidural Anesthesia for Cesarean Section

Background: Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) can be performed with either a single-space technique or a double-space technique for cesarean section. We performed a double-blind randomized controlled study to compare the effect of the double-space technique with that of the single-space technique on sensory block level and side effects. Methods: Parturients undergoing elective cesarean section under regional anesthesia were randomized to receive CSEA with either the double-space technique (double group, n = 20) or the single-space technique (single group, n = 20). In the double group, an epidural catheter was inserted at the L1–2 interspace, and dural puncture was performed at the L3–4 interspace. In the single group, the procedure was performed at the L3–4 interspace using the needle-through-needle technique. Results: There were no differences in time to readiness or intraoperative level of sensory block between the two groups. The postoperative sensory level was maintained at a higher level in the double group than in the single group (1 h postoperatively, P = 0.029; 6 h postoperatively, P = 0.016). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of side effects. The parturient satisfaction scores 48 h postoperatively were significantly different between groups (9.5 in the double group vs. 8 in the single group, P = 0.004). Conclusions: We conclude that there were no differences in intraoperative variables between the double-space technique and the single-space technique for CSEA. However, double-space CSEA for cesarean section may be beneficial for controlling postoperative pain and improving parturient satisfaction. Trial registration: The study was retrospectively registered at https://cris.nih.go.kr under the trial ID KCT0002514. Date of registration: October 27, 2017.

Crossed modules, double group-groupoids and crossed squares

The purpose of this paper is to obtain the notion of crossed module over group-groupoids considering split extensions and prove a categorical equivalence between these types of crossed modules and double group-groupoids. This equivalence enables us to produce various examples of double groupoids. We also prove that crossed modules over group-groupoids are equivalent to crossed squares.

A Randomized Double-Blind Comparison of Double-Space Technique versus Single-Space Technique in Combined Spinal-Epidural Anesthesia for Cesarean Section

Background: Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) can be performed as either a single-space technique or a double-space technique for Cesarean section. We performed a double-blind randomized controlled study to compare the effect of the double-space technique with that of the single-space technique on the sensory block level and side effects. Methods: Parturients undergoing elective Cesarean section under regional anesthesia were randomized to receive CSEA with either the double-space technique (double group, n = 20) or single-space technique (single group, n = 20). In the double group, an epidural catheter was inserted at the L1–2 interspace, and dural puncture was performed at the L3–4 interspace. In the single group, the procedure was performed at the L3–4 interspace using the needle-through-needle technique.Results: There were no differences in time to readiness or the intraoperative level of sensory block between the two groups. The postoperative sensory level was maintained higher in the double group (postoperative 1 h, P = 0.029; postoperative 6 h, P = 0.016). There was no difference between the two groups in side effects. The parturients’ satisfaction scores at 48 h postoperative were significantly different (9.5 in the double group vs. 8 in the single group, P = 0.004).Conclusions: We conclude that there were no differences in intraoperative variables between double -space technique and single space-technique for CSEA. However, double-space CSEA may be beneficial for postoperative pain control and parturients’ satisfaction scores of for Cesarean section.Trial registration: The study was registered at https://cris.nih.go.kr under the trial ID, KCT0002514, retrospectively registered. Date of registration: October 27, 2017.

On Plurality Category and Teaching in Turkish

When discussing about "plurality" of nouns in Turkish, it reminds /+lar/ affix after nouns (morpheme) and the subject is undervalued. Whereas, plurality and formation of plurality is not simple as it is thought as well as it is not made up of /+lar/ affix. It is because /+lar/ affix is only one of the linguistic elements in the morphological plurality used for making plural in Turkish.Out of /+lar/ affix, /+An+/, /+Ar+/, /+(ş)Ar+/, /+GIl+/, /+GUn+/, /+ºK+/, /+lA+/, /+ºs+/, /+ºş+/, /+ºT+/, /+ºz+/ affixes have given plurality, plus, double, group, generalization, exaggeration, respect etc. to the words they are added in the historical process of Turkish. However, a major part of affixes used in plurality by morphological ways in Turkish has lost their function of plurality etc. in the historical process and combined with the base, origin, and body of their words.The plurality in Turkish is a name of category (as it is in all world languages) and made in three ways: Morphological plurality, semantic plurality, and syntactic pluralityIn this article, information is given primarily in "generality" and "singularity" and secondarily in plurality in Turkish, ways of forming this category, and some problems in learning it.