A Framework for a Robot's Emotion Engine

An Emotions Engine is a modelling and a simplification of the Brain circuitry that generate emotions. It should produce a variety of responses including rapid reaction-like emotions as well as slower moods. We introduce such an engine and then propose a framework for its translated equivalent for a robot. We then define key issues that need addressing and provide guidelines via the framework, for its implementation onto an actual robot’s Emotions Engine

Additional file 2 of Combined models for pre- and post-treatment longitudinal biomarker data: an application to CD4 counts in HIV-patients

Tar file containing an R script and ADMB template files to simulate data based on the structure and point estimates of Model6, as described in Results section, and to then refit Model4 and Model6 to these data. (TAR 205 kb

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of L1-VLP-Based Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Efficacy against Anogenital Pre-Cancer in Women with Evidence of Prior HPV Exposure

<div><p>Background</p><p>It is unclear whether L1-VLP-based human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines are efficacious in reducing the likelihood of anogenital pre-cancer in women with evidence of prior vaccine-type HPV exposure. This study aims to determine whether the combined results of the vaccine trials published to date provide evidence of efficacy compared with control (hepatitis A vaccine/placebo).</p><p>Methods</p><p>A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and references of identified studies. The bivalent vaccine containing HPV-16 and 18 VLPs from GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals (Rixenstart, Belgium), the quadrivalent vaccine containing HPV-6, 11, 16, and 18 VLPs from Merck & Co., Inc., (Whitehouse Station, NJ USA), and the HPV-16 monovalent vaccine from Merck Research Laboratories (West Point, PA USA) were evaluated.</p><p>Findings</p><p>Three RCT reports and two post-trial cohort studies were eligible, comprising data from 13,482 women who were included in the vaccine studies but had evidence of HPV infection at study entry. Data on efficacy was synthesized using the Mantel-Haenszel weighted fixed-effect approach, or where there was heterogeneity between studies, the DerSimonian and Laird weighted random-effect approach. The mean odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the association between <i>Cervarix</i>, <i>Gardasil</i> and HPV-16 monovalent vaccine and HPV-associated cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse was 0·90 (95% CI: 0·56, 1·44). For the association between <i>Gardasil</i> and HPV-associated vulval/vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2–3, the overall OR and 95% CI was 2.25 (95% CI: 0·78, 6.50). Sample size and follow-up were limited.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>There was no evidence that HPV vaccines are effective in preventing vaccine-type HPV associated pre-cancer in women with evidence of prior HPV exposure. Small effects of vaccination however cannot be excluded and a longer-term benefit in preventing re-infection remains possible.</p></div

Assessing End of Phase 2 Decision Criteria

<div><p>The objectives of the Phase 2 stage in a drug development program are often to evaluate the safety and tolerability of different doses, select a promising dose range, and look for early signs of activity (i.e., to establish proof of concept). At the end of Phase 2 (EOP2), a decision to initiate Phase 3 studies is made that involves the commitment of considerable resources. One of the key factors in this decision is the expected efficacy and the associated predicted probability of success (PoS) in Phase 3. Making a decision based upon the PoS requires decision makers to select a benchmark (or PoS criterion) for the PoS, which if achieved would enable a “go-to-Phase 3” decision. However, appropriately choosing the criterion requires knowledge of the operating characteristics associated with the decision criteria. A key operating characteristic that a funder/sponsor requires to make such a choice is to understand the predicted conditional probability of making a go decision and subsequently failing in Phase 3. In this article, we show how such risks can be informed through the use of clinical trial simulation. We also highlight through a worked example in pancreatic cancer how this simulation exercise can help to decide between different development strategies for a specific indication. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.</p></div

L'Abbé plot displaying the rate of cervical or vulval/vaginal lesions at end-of-study follow-up.

<p>Symbol size represents sample size. Results are displayed in terms of the line of equality where event rate in vaccine group  =  event rate in control/placebo group</p

Modified Galbraith plot for studies that presented data on CIN3+ (based on two-sided p-values).

<p>Standard normal deviate of OR against its precision.</p

Search terms.

<p>These search terms were for PubMed, the primary source of citations. Searches of other data sources used modified versions of these terms.</p

Systematic review flowchart.

<p>Footnote: * Of the final 26 studies in the review, one comprised two separate populations <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0061826#pone.0061826-Sacktor1" target="_blank">[10]</a>, which are treated as two different studies in all further analyses.</p

Characteristics of patients enrolled in studies of the HIV Dementia Scale (HDS) and International HIV Dementia Scale (IHDS).

*<p>Sample sizes refer to the number of patients with data that were useable for meta-analysis, following discussion with study authors as necessary.</p>**<p>Participants were randomly selected from an existing cohort, in proportions approximating published prevalence of MND and HAD.</p>***<p>Participants were sampled to generate two equal groups (n = 50 each): those with symptoms of cognitive impairment and those without. The quoted prevalence of MND and HAD is based on extrapolation up to a larger sample (n = 200) receiving a symptom questionnaire.</p>****<p>The paper reported two independent samples, treated as separate studies in this review.</p><p>AAN: American Academy of Neurology; ADC: AIDS dementia complex; ART, antiretroviral therapy; HAD: HIV-associated dementia; HDS: HIV dementia scale; IHDS: international HIV dementia scale; IQR: inter-quartile range; MCMD: minor cognitive/motor disorder; MMSE, mini mental state examination; MND: minor neurocognitive disorder; NCI: neurocognitive impairment; SD: standard deviation (numbers refer to number of SD relative to normative means).</p

Estimates of diagnostic accuracy reported in studies in the review.

*<p>Unless stated, assessment for comprehensive clinical criteria (MSK, AAN, or Frascati) included neuropsychological evaluation of at least 5 cognitive domains.</p>**<p>Studies using ANI as the reference standard are not included in summary estimates or figures.</p>***<p>The paper reported two independent samples, treated as separate studies.</p><p>ADC: AIDS dementia complex; ANI: asymptomatic neurocognitive impairment; CI: confidence interval; HAD: HIV-associated dementia; HAND: HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder; MCMD: minor cognitive/motor disorder; MMSE: mini mental state examination; MND: minor neurocognitive disorder; MSK: Memorial Sloan-Kettering; NCI: neurocognitive impairment; NP: neuropsychological.</p