Search

The growing variety of computing systems, the rapid increase in their complexity, their integration into objects and processes of the physical world require a dramatic increase in the productivity of their creators. It is noted that the quality, timing, and degree of reuse of design results in the field of information technologies strongly depend on design methodologies and routes at the stages of choosing and/or creating stacks of platforms, technologies and tools. The most important role belongs to the ways of describing the organization of the computing system at various levels and to the used systems of abstractions. The problem of filling the semantic gap between the conceptual (architectural) level and the implementation levels is still very acute. So, it requires the creation of industrial techniques and design tools at these “intermediate” levels. The paper suggests ways of presenting design solutions that are aimed at a holistic, end-to-end description of both the logic of the computing process organization and the steps, technologies, and tools of the design process. The content and the necessity of the stages of microarchitectural design of computing systems is justified and explained in detail. Classification of projects in the field of information technologies according to the degree of variability of the project platform is introduced. Several concepts representing a set of abstractions for microarchitectural design within projects with great variability are suggested. The following abstractions are described in detail: project, design and aspect spaces, project platforms and cross-level mechanisms. Examples of several proposed abstractions presentations (design documentation tools) of microarchitectural design stages are discussed that are most relevant in the design of computing systems in the “limited resources” model: embedded systems, cyber-physical systems, “edge” and “fog” levels of Internet of Things systems.

Two-dimensional dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA, osteodensitometry) is currently considered as the gold standard for diagnosis of osteoporosis. However, despite good operational characteristics, this type of investigation cannot help to assess bone microarchitecture and the degree of its derangement in osteoporosis. Therefore, trabecular bone score (TBS) has been developed as a non-invasive method of indirect description of bone microarchitecture based on data derived from a standard DXA of the lumbar spine. Not being a direct mapping of the physical measurements of trabecular microarchitecture, TBS nevertheless shows a positive correlation with quantitative values obtained from micro-computed tomography and high resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography, i.e. with the bone volume fraction, junction density, trabecular numbers and their disintegration. There is also an association between the ability of the bone tissue to resist stress in experimental studies ex vivo and TBS measurement. Due to TBS, there is a possibility to detect bone microarchitecture impairment even in individuals with normal bone mineral density (BMD), i.e. higher TBS values correlate with improved bone microstructure, whereas a reduced TBS shows its deterioration. Limitation of TBS use are primarily related to the DXA image quality: image faults caused either by technical reasons or by too low or too high body mass index can lead to an overestimation/underestimation of the index. Assessment of the lumbar TBS has been repeatedly performed in cross-sectional and prospective studies in representative patient samples (mainly postmenopausal women) and significant numbers of healthy subjects, and proved to be a predictor (independent of BMD) of fracture risk. An evaluation of the possibility to use TBS for early diagnosis of secondary osteoporosis (related to various endocrine disorders) would be of great interest, as BMD, as known from clinical practice, is not always a reliable measurement of the bone endurance, especially in diabetes, steroid osteoporosis and acromegaly. The use of TBS along with BMD as a marker of efficacy of current treatment for secondary osteoporosis is also possible, but it is not yet evidence-based; therefore, research has to be continued.