Definitions, methods, and applications in interpretable machine learning.

Machine-learning models have demonstrated great success in learning complex patterns that enable them to make predictions about unobserved data. In addition to using models for prediction, the ability to interpret what a model has learned is receiving an increasing amount of attention. However, this increased focus has led to considerable confusion about the notion of interpretability. In particular, it is unclear how the wide array of proposed interpretation methods are related and what common concepts can be used to evaluate them. We aim to address these concerns by defining interpretability in the context of machine learning and introducing the predictive, descriptive, relevant (PDR) framework for discussing interpretations. The PDR framework provides 3 overarching desiderata for evaluation: predictive accuracy, descriptive accuracy, and relevancy, with relevancy judged relative to a human audience. Moreover, to help manage the deluge of interpretation methods, we introduce a categorization of existing techniques into model-based and post hoc categories, with subgroups including sparsity, modularity, and simulatability. To demonstrate how practitioners can use the PDR framework to evaluate and understand interpretations, we provide numerous real-world examples. These examples highlight the often underappreciated role played by human audiences in discussions of interpretability. Finally, based on our framework, we discuss limitations of existing methods and directions for future work. We hope that this work will provide a common vocabulary that will make it easier for both practitioners and researchers to discuss and choose from the full range of interpretation methods

A hybrid solid electrolyte for flexible solid-state sodium batteries

Development of Na-ion battery electrolyte with high-performance electrochemical properties and high safety is still challenging to achieve. In this study, we report on a NASICON (Na3Zr2Si2PO12)-based composite hybrid solid electrolyte (HSE) designed for use in a high safety solid-state sodium battery for the first time. The composite HSE design yields the required solid-state electrolyte properties for this application, including high ionic conductivity, a wide electrochemical window, and high thermal stability. The solid-state batteries of half-cell type exhibit an initial discharge capacity of 330 and 131 mA h g(-1) for a hard carbon anode and a NaFePO4 cathode at a 0.2C-rate of room temperature, respectively. Moreover, a pouch-type flexible solid-state full-cell comprising hard carbon/HSE/NaFePO4 exhibits a highly reversible electrochemical reaction, high specific capacity, and a good, stable cycle life with high flexibility.open0

Role of Physical Activity and Fitness in the Characterization and Prognosis of the Metabolically Healthy Obesity Phenotype: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The aims of the present article are to systematically review and meta-analyze the existing evidence on: 1) differences in physical activity (PA), sedentary behavior (SB), cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and muscular strength (MST) between metabolically healthy obesity (MHO) and metabolically unhealthy obesity (MUO); and 2) the prognosis of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality/morbidity in MHO individuals, compared with the best scenario possible, i.e., metabolically healthy normal-weight (MHNW), after adjusting for PA, SB, CRF or MST. Our systematic review identified 67 cross-sectional studies to address aim 1, and 11 longitudinal studies to address aim 2. The major findings and conclusions from the current meta-analysis are: 1) MHO individuals are more active, spend less time in SB, and have a higher level of CRF (yet no differences in MST) than MUO individuals, suggesting that their healthier metabolic profile could be at least partially due to these healthier lifestyle factors and attributes. 2) The meta-analysis of cohort studies which accounted for PA (N = 10 unique cohorts, 100% scored as high-quality) support the notion that MHO individuals have a 24-33% higher risk of all-cause mortality and CVD mortality/morbidity compared to MHNW individuals. This risk was borderline significant/non-significant, independent of the length of the follow-up and lower than that reported in previous meta-analyses in this topic including all type of studies, which could be indicating a modest reduction in the risk estimates as a consequence of accounting for PA. 3) Only one study has examined the role of CRF in the prognosis of MHO individuals. This study suggests that the differences in the risk of all-cause mortality and CVD mortality/morbidity between MHO and MHNW are largely explained by differences in CRF between these two phenotypes

Outcomes from elective colorectal cancer surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

This study aimed to describe the change in surgical practice and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on mortality after surgical resection of colorectal cancer during the initial phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

More than smell - COVID-19 is associated with severe impairment of smell, taste, and chemesthesis

Recent anecdotal and scientific reports have provided evidence of a link between COVID-19 and chemosensory impairments, such as anosmia. However, these reports have downplayed or failed to distinguish potential effects on taste, ignored chemesthesis, and generally lacked quantitative measurements. Here, we report the development, implementation, and initial results of a multilingual, international questionnaire to assess self-reported quantity and quality of perception in 3 distinct chemosensory modalities (smell, taste, and chemesthesis) before and during COVID-19. In the first 11 days after questionnaire launch, 4039 participants (2913 women, 1118 men, and 8 others, aged 19-79) reported a COVID-19 diagnosis either via laboratory tests or clinical assessment. Importantly, smell, taste, and chemesthetic function were each significantly reduced compared to their status before the disease. Difference scores (maximum possible change ±100) revealed a mean reduction of smell (-79.7 ± 28.7, mean ± standard deviation), taste (-69.0 ± 32.6), and chemesthetic (-37.3 ± 36.2) function during COVID-19. Qualitative changes in olfactory ability (parosmia and phantosmia) were relatively rare and correlated with smell loss. Importantly, perceived nasal obstruction did not account for smell loss. Furthermore, chemosensory impairments were similar between participants in the laboratory test and clinical assessment groups. These results show that COVID-19-associated chemosensory impairment is not limited to smell but also affects taste and chemesthesis. The multimodal impact of COVID-19 and the lack of perceived nasal obstruction suggest that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus strain 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection may disrupt sensory-neural mechanisms. © 2020 The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved

More than smell - COVID-19 is associated with severe impairment of smell, taste, and chemesthesis

Recent anecdotal and scientific reports have provided evidence of a link between COVID-19 and chemosensory impairments such as anosmia. However, these reports have downplayed or failed to distinguish potential effects on taste, ignored chemesthesis, generally lacked quantitative measurements, were mostly restricted to data from single countries. Here, we report the development, implementation and initial results of a multi-lingual, international questionnaire to assess self-reported quantity and quality of perception in three distinct chemosensory modalities (smell, taste, and chemesthesis) before and during COVID-19. In the first 11 days after questionnaire launch, 4039 participants (2913 women, 1118 men, 8 other, ages 19-79) reported a COVID-19 diagnosis either via laboratory tests or clinical assessment. Importantly, smell, taste and chemesthetic function were each significantly reduced compared to their status before the disease. Difference scores (maximum possible change+/-100) revealed a mean reduction of smell (-79.7+/- 28.7, mean+/- SD), taste (-69.0+/- 32.6), and chemesthetic (-37.3+/- 36.2) function during COVID-19. Qualitative changes in olfactory ability (parosmia and phantosmia) were relatively rare and correlated with smell loss. Importantly, perceived nasal obstruction did not account for smell loss. Furthermore, chemosensory impairments were similar between participants in the laboratory test and clinical assessment groups. These results show that COVID-19-associated chemosensory impairment is not limited to smell, but also affects taste and chemesthesis. The multimodal impact of COVID-19 and lack of perceived nasal obstruction suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infection may disrupt sensory-neural mechanisms.Additional co-authors: Veronica Pereda-Loth, Shannon B Olsson, Richard C Gerkin, Paloma Rohlfs Domínguez, Javier Albayay, Michael C. Farruggia, Surabhi Bhutani, Alexander W Fjaeldstad, Ritesh Kumar, Anna Menini, Moustafa Bensafi, Mari Sandell, Iordanis Konstantinidis, Antonella Di Pizio, Federica Genovese, Lina Öztürk, Thierry Thomas-Danguin, Johannes Frasnelli, Sanne Boesveldt, Özlem Saatci, Luis R. Saraiva, Cailu Lin, Jérôme Golebiowski, Liang-Dar Hwang, Mehmet Hakan Ozdener, Maria Dolors Guàrdia, Christophe Laudamiel, Marina Ritchie, Jan Havlícek, Denis Pierron, Eugeni Roura, Marta Navarro, Alissa A. Nolden, Juyun Lim, KL Whitcroft, Lauren R. Colquitt, Camille Ferdenzi, Evelyn V. Brindha, Aytug Altundag, Alberto Macchi, Alexia Nunez-Parra, Zara M. Patel, Sébastien Fiorucci, Carl M. Philpott, Barry C. Smith, Johan N Lundström, Carla Mucignat, Jane K. Parker, Mirjam van den Brink, Michael Schmuker, Florian Ph.S Fischmeister, Thomas Heinbockel, Vonnie D.C. Shields, Farhoud Faraji, Enrique Enrique Santamaría, William E.A. Fredborg, Gabriella Morini, Jonas K. Olofsson, Maryam Jalessi, Noam Karni, Anna D'Errico, Rafieh Alizadeh, Robert Pellegrino, Pablo Meyer, Caroline Huart, Ben Chen, Graciela M. Soler, Mohammed K. Alwashahi, Olagunju Abdulrahman, Antje Welge-Lüssen, Pamela Dalton, Jessica Freiherr, Carol H. Yan, Jasper H. B. de Groot, Vera V. Voznessenskaya, Hadar Klein, Jingguo Chen, Masako Okamoto, Elizabeth A. Sell, Preet Bano Singh, Julie Walsh-Messinger, Nicholas S. Archer, Sachiko Koyama, Vincent Deary, Hüseyin Yanik, Samet Albayrak, Lenka Martinec Novákov, Ilja Croijmans, Patricia Portillo Mazal, Shima T. Moein, Eitan Margulis, Coralie Mignot, Sajidxa Mariño, Dejan Georgiev, Pavan K. Kaushik, Bettina Malnic, Hong Wang, Shima Seyed-Allaei, Nur Yoluk, Sara Razzaghi, Jeb M. Justice, Diego Restrepo, Julien W Hsieh, Danielle R. Reed, Thomas Hummel, Steven D Munger, John E Haye

Which method is best for the induction of labour?: A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background: More than 150,000 pregnant women in England and Wales have their labour induced each year. Multiple pharmacological, mechanical and complementary methods are available to induce labour. Objective: To assess the relative effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of labour induction methods and, data permitting, effects in different clinical subgroups. Methods: We carried out a systematic review using Cochrane methods. The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register was searched (March 2014). This contains over 22,000 reports of controlled trials (published from 1923 onwards) retrieved from weekly searches of OVID MEDLINE (1966 to current); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library); EMBASE (1982 to current); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1984 to current); ClinicalTrials.gov; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Portal; and hand-searching of relevant conference proceedings and journals. We included randomised controlled trials examining interventions to induce labour compared with placebo, no treatment or other interventions in women eligible for third-trimester induction. We included outcomes relating to efficacy, safety and acceptability to women. In addition, for the economic analysis we searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Economic Evaluations Databases, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Technology Assessment database. We carried out a network meta-analysis (NMA) using all of the available evidence, both direct and indirect, to produce estimates of the relative effects of each treatment compared with others in a network. We developed a de novo decision tree model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of various methods. The costs included were the intervention and other hospital costs incurred (price year 2012–13). We reviewed the literature to identify preference-based utilities for the health-related outcomes in the model. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, expected costs, utilities and net benefit. We represent uncertainty in the optimal intervention using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results: We identified 1190 studies; 611 were eligible for inclusion. The interventions most likely to achieve vaginal delivery (VD) within 24 hours were intravenous oxytocin with amniotomy [posterior rank 2; 95% credible intervals (CrIs) 1 to 9] and higher-dose (≥ 50 μg) vaginal misoprostol (rank 3; 95% CrI 1 to 6). Compared with placebo, several treatments reduced the odds of caesarean section, but we observed considerable uncertainty in treatment rankings. For uterine hyperstimulation, double-balloon catheter had the highest probability of being among the best three treatments, whereas vaginal misoprostol (≥ 50 μg) was most likely to increase the odds of excessive uterine activity. For other safety outcomes there were insufficient data or there was too much uncertainty to identify which treatments performed ‘best’. Few studies collected information on women’s views. Owing to incomplete reporting of the VD within 24 hours outcome, the cost-effectiveness analysis could compare only 20 interventions. The analysis suggested that most interventions have similar utility and differ mainly in cost. With a caveat of considerable uncertainty, titrated (low-dose) misoprostol solution and buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the highest likelihood of being cost-effective. Limitations: There was considerable uncertainty in findings and there were insufficient data for some planned subgroup analyses. Conclusions: Overall, misoprostol and oxytocin with amniotomy (for women with favourable cervix) is more successful than other agents in achieving VD within 24 hours. The ranking according to safety of different methods was less clear. The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that titrated (low-dose) oral misoprostol solution resulted in the highest utility, whereas buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the lowest cost. There was a high degree of uncertainty as to the most cost-effective intervention

Inorganic solid/organic liquid hybrid electrolyte for use in Li-ion battery

This study focuses on preparing a hybrid electrolyte, the combination of 90 wt% inorganic solid and 10 wt% organic liquid, for lithium based rechargeable batteries to illustrate the effect of electrode/electrolyte interfacing on electrochemical performance. The inorganic solid electrolyte selected is Li 1.3Ti 1.7Al 0.3(PO 4) 3, and the Li-ion conducting organic liquid electrolyte selected is 1 M LiPF 6 in EC:DEC. Because of the addition of Li-ion conducting liquid between the solid electrode and solid electrolyte, the hybrid electrolyte cell minimizes the ineffective solid-on-solid interfaces common in all-solid-state cells. It is also expected that using a liquid electrolyte at the point of contact between the solid electrolyte and the electrode will adjust for the volume change of the electrode during Li insertion/extraction. As a result, the electrochemical performance of the hybrid electrolyte cell is superior to that of a solid electrolyte cell and is also competitive to that of a pure liquid electrolyte coin cell. Another advantage of the hybrid electrolyte cell observed in this work is that this system behaves as a self-safety device when sudden, higher temperatures are applied.close3

A Bayesian One-Sample Test for Proportion

This paper deals with a new Bayesian approach to the one-sample test for proportion. More specifically, let x=(x1,…,xn) be an independent random sample of size n from a Bernoulli distribution with an unknown parameter θ. For a fixed value θ0, the goal is to test the null hypothesis H0:θ=θ0 against all possible alternatives. The proposed approach is based on using the well-known formula of the Kullback–Leibler divergence between two binomial distributions chosen in a certain way. Then, the difference of the distance from a priori to a posteriori is compared through the relative belief ratio (a measure of evidence). Some theoretical properties of the method are developed. Examples and simulation results are included