Ordinal Regression for Difficulty Estimation of StepMania Levels

StepMania is a popular open-source clone of a rhythm-based video game. As is common in popular games, there is a large number of community-designed levels. It is often difficult for players and level authors to determine the difficulty level of such community contributions. In this work, we formalize and analyze the difficulty prediction task on StepMania levels as an ordinal regression (OR) task. We standardize a more extensive and diverse selection of this data resulting in five data sets, two of which are extensions of previous work. We evaluate many competitive OR and non-OR models, demonstrating that neural network-based models significantly outperform the state of the art and that StepMania-level data makes for an excellent test bed for deep OR models. We conclude with a user experiment showing our trained models' superiority over human labeling

Rethinking Assumptions in Deep Anomaly Detection

Though anomaly detection (AD) can be viewed as a classification problem (nominal vs. anomalous) it is usually treated in an unsupervised manner since one typically does not have access to, or it is infeasible to utilize, a dataset that sufficiently characterizes what it means to be "anomalous." In this paper we present results demonstrating that this intuition surprisingly seems not to extend to deep AD on images. For a recent AD benchmark on ImageNet, classifiers trained to discern between normal samples and just a few (64) random natural images are able to outperform the current state of the art in deep AD. Experimentally we discover that the multiscale structure of image data makes example anomalies exceptionally informative.Comment: 17 pages; accepted at the ICML 2021 Workshop on Uncertainty & Robustness in Deep Learnin

Cost-Effectiveness of Lower Extremity Nerve Decompression Surgery in the Prevention of Ulcers and Amputations:A Markov Analysis

Background: The costs and health effects associated with lower extremity complications in diabetes mellitus are an increasing burden to society. In selected patients, lower extremity nerve decompression is able to reduce symptoms of neuropathy and the concomitant risks of diabetic foot ulcers and amputations. To estimate the health and economic effects of this type of surgery, the cost-effectiveness of this intervention compared to current nonsurgical care was studied. Methods: To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of lower extremity nerve decompression over a 10-year period, a Markov model was developed to simulate the onset and progression of diabetic foot disease in patients with diabetes and neuropathy who underwent lower extremity nerve decompression surgery, compared to a group undergoing current nonsurgical care. Mean survival time, health-related quality of life, presence or risk of lower extremity complications, and in-hospital costs were the outcome measures assessed. Data from the Rotterdam Diabetic Foot Study were used as current care, complemented with information from international studies on the epidemiology of diabetic foot disease, resource use, and costs, to feed the model. Results: Lower extremity nerve decompression surgery resulted in improved life expectancy (88,369.5 life-years versus 86,513.6 life-years), gain of quality-adjusted life-years (67,652.5 versus 64,082.3), and reduced incidence of foot complications compared to current care (490 versus 1087). The incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was -euro59,279.6 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, which is below the Dutch critical threshold of less than euro80,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Conclusions: Decompression surgery of lower extremity nerves improves survival, reduces diabetic foot complications, and is cost saving and cost-effective compared with current care, suggesting considerable socioeconomic benefit for society

Treatment and outcomes of invasive fusariosis: review of 65 cases from the PATH Alliance ® registry

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/109347/1/myc12212.pd

Investigation of the use of a sensor bracelet for the presymptomatic detection of changes in physiological parameters related to COVID-19: an interim analysis of a prospective cohort study (COVI-GAPP).

OBJECTIVES We investigated machinelearningbased identification of presymptomatic COVID-19 and detection of infection-related changes in physiology using a wearable device. DESIGN Interim analysis of a prospective cohort study. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS Participants from a national cohort study in Liechtenstein were included. Nightly they wore the Ava-bracelet that measured respiratory rate (RR), heart rate (HR), HR variability (HRV), wrist-skin temperature (WST) and skin perfusion. SARS-CoV-2 infection was diagnosed by molecular and/or serological assays. RESULTS A total of 1.5 million hours of physiological data were recorded from 1163 participants (mean age 44±5.5 years). COVID-19 was confirmed in 127 participants of which, 66 (52%) had worn their device from baseline to symptom onset (SO) and were included in this analysis. Multi-level modelling revealed significant changes in five (RR, HR, HRV, HRV ratio and WST) device-measured physiological parameters during the incubation, presymptomatic, symptomatic and recovery periods of COVID-19 compared with baseline. The training set represented an 8-day long instance extracted from day 10 to day 2 before SO. The training set consisted of 40 days measurements from 66 participants. Based on a random split, the test set included 30% of participants and 70% were selected for the training set. The developed long short-term memory (LSTM) based recurrent neural network (RNN) algorithm had a recall (sensitivity) of 0.73 in the training set and 0.68 in the testing set when detecting COVID-19 up to 2 days prior to SO. CONCLUSION Wearable sensor technology can enable COVID-19 detection during the presymptomatic period. Our proposed RNN algorithm identified 68% of COVID-19 positive participants 2 days prior to SO and will be further trained and validated in a randomised, single-blinded, two-period, two-sequence crossover trial. Trial registration number ISRCTN51255782; Pre-results

How Well do Polygenic Risk Scores Identify Men at High Risk for Prostate Cancer? : Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES: Genome-wide association studies have revealed over 200 genetic susceptibility loci for prostate cancer (PCa). By combining them, polygenic risk scores (PRS) can be generated to predict risk of PCa. We summarize the published evidence and conduct meta-analyses of PRS as a predictor of PCa risk in Caucasian men. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were extracted from 59 studies, with 16 studies including 17 separate analyses used in the main meta-analysis with a total of 20,786 cases and 69,106 controls identified through a systematic search of ten databases. Random effects meta-analysis was used to obtain pooled estimates of area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC). Meta-regression was used to assess the impact of number of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) incorporated in PRS on AUC. Heterogeneity is expressed as I2 scores. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger tests. RESULTS: The ability of PRS to identify men with PCa was modest (pooled AUC 0.63, 95% CI 0.62-0.64) with moderate consistency (I2 64%). Combining PRS with clinical variables increased the pooled AUC to 0.74 (0.68-0.81). Meta-regression showed only negligible increase in AUC for adding incremental SNPs. Despite moderate heterogeneity, publication bias was not evident. CONCLUSION: Typically, PRS accuracy is comparable to PSA or family history with a pooled AUC value 0.63 indicating mediocre performance for PRS alone.publishedVersionPeer reviewe

A prospective, randomized, single-blinded, crossover trial to investigate the effect of a wearable device in addition to a daily symptom diary for the remote early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections (COVID-RED): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Abstract Objectives It is currently thought that most—but not all—individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop symptoms, but that the infectious period starts on average two days before the first overt symptoms appear. It is estimated that pre- and asymptomatic individuals are responsible for more than half of all transmissions. By detecting infected individuals before they have overt symptoms, wearable devices could potentially and significantly reduce the proportion of transmissions by pre-symptomatic individuals. Using laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections (detected via serology tests [to determine if there are antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 in the blood] or SARS-CoV-2 infection tests such as polymerase chain reaction [PCR] or antigen tests) as the gold standard, we will determine the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for the following two algorithms to detect first time SARS-CoV-2 infection including early or asymptomatic infection: the algorithm using Ava bracelet data when coupled with self-reported Daily Symptom Diary data (Wearable + Symptom Data Algo; experimental condition) the algorithm using self-reported Daily Symptom Diary data alone (Symptom Only Algo; control condition) In addition, we will determine which of the two algorithms has superior performance characteristics for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection including early or asymptomatic infection as confirmed by SARS-CoV-2 virus testing. Trial design The trial is a randomized, single-blinded, two-period, two-sequence crossover trial. All subjects will participate in an initial Learning Phase (varying from 2 weeks to 3 months depending on enrolment date), followed by two contiguous 3-month test phases, Period 1 and Period 2. Each subject will undergo the experimental condition (the Wearable + Symptom Data Algo) in one of these periods and the control condition (Symptom Only Algo) in the other period. The order will be randomly assigned, resulting in subjects being allocated 1:1 to either Sequence 1 (experimental condition first) or Sequence 2 (control condition first). Based on demographics, medical history and/or profession, each subject will be stratified at baseline into a high-risk and normal-risk group within each sequence. Participants The trial will be conducted in the Netherlands. A target of 20,000 subjects will be enrolled. Based on demographics, medical history and/or profession, each subject will be stratified at baseline into a high-risk and normal-risk group within each sequence. This results in approximately 6,500 normal-risk individuals and 3,500 high-risk individuals per sequence. Subjects will be recruited from previously studied cohorts as well as via public campaigns and social media. All data for this study will be collected remotely through the Ava COVID-RED app, the Ava bracelet, surveys in the COVID-RED web portal, and self-sampling serology and PCR kits. During recruitment, subjects will be invited to visit the COVID-RED web portal ( www.covid-red.eu ). After successfully completing the enrolment questionnaire, meeting eligibility criteria and indicating interest in joining the study, subjects will receive the subject information sheet and informed consent form. Subjects can enrol in COVID-RED if they comply with the following inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria: Resident of the Netherlands At least 18 years old Informed consent provided (electronic) Willing to adhere to the study procedures described in the protocol Must have a smartphone that runs at least Android 8.0 or iOS 13.0 operating systems and is active for the duration of the study (in the case of a change of mobile number, study team should be notified) Be able to read, understand and write Dutch Exclusion criteria: Previous positive SARS-CoV-2 test result (confirmed either through PCR/antigen or antibody tests; self-reported) Previously received a vaccine developed specifically for COVID-19 or in possession of an appointment for vaccination in the near future (self-reported) Current suspected (e.g., waiting for test result) COVID-19 infection or symptoms of a COVID-19 infection (self-reported) Participating in any other COVID-19 clinical drug, vaccine, or medical device trial (self-reported) Electronic implanted device (such as a pacemaker; self-reported) Pregnant at time of informed consent (self-reported) Suffering from cholinergic urticaria (per the Ava bracelet’s User Manual; self-reported) Staff involved in the management or conduct of this study Intervention and comparator All subjects will be instructed to complete the Daily Symptom Diary in the Ava COVID-RED app daily, wear their Ava bracelet each night and synchronise it with the app each day for the entire period of study participation. Provided with wearable sensor and/or self-reported symptom data within the last 24 hours, the Ava COVID-RED app’s underlying algorithms will provide subjects with a real-time indicator of their overall health and well-being. Subjects will see one of three messages, notifying them that: no seeming deviations in symptoms and/or physiological parameters have been detected; some changes in symptoms and/or physiological parameters have been detected and they should self-isolate; or alerting them that deviations in their symptoms and/or physiological parameters could be suggestive of a potential COVID-19 infection and to seek additional testing. We will assess intraperson performance of the algorithms in the experimental condition (Wearable + Symptom Data Algo) and control conditions (Symptom Only Algo). Main outcomes The trial will evaluate the use and performance of the Ava COVID-RED app and Ava bracelet, which uses sensors to measure breathing rate, pulse rate, skin temperature, and heart rate variability for the purpose of early and asymptomatic detection and monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 in general and high-risk populations. Using laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections (detected via serology tests, PCR tests and/or antigen tests) as the gold standard, we will determine the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for each of the following two algorithms to detect first-time SARS-CoV-2 infection including early or asymptomatic infection: the algorithm using Ava Bracelet data when coupled with the self-reported Daily Symptom Diary data, and the algorithm using self-reported Daily Symptom Diary data alone. In addition, we will determine which of the two algorithms has superior performance characteristics for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection including early or asymptomatic infection as confirmed by SARS-CoV-2 virus testing. The protocol contains an additional seventeen secondary outcomes which address infection incidence rates, health resource utilization, symptoms reported by SARS-CoV-2 infected participants, and the rate of breakthrough and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections among individuals vaccinated against COVID-19. PCR or antigen testing will occur when the subject receives a notification from the algorithm to seek additional testing. Subjects will be advised to get tested via the national testing programme, and report the testing result in the Ava COVID-RED app and a survey. If they cannot obtain a test via the national testing programme, they will receive a nasal swab self-sampling kit at home, and the sample will be tested by PCR in a trial-affiliated laboratory. In addition, all subjects will be asked to take a capillary blood sample at home at baseline (Month 0), and at the end of the Learning Phase (Month 3), Period 1 (Month 6) and Period 2 (Month 9). These samples will be used for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody testing in a trial-affiliated laboratory, differentiating between antibodies resulting from a natural infection and antibodies resulting from COVID-19 vaccination (as vaccination will gradually be rolled out during the trial period). Baseline samples will only be analysed if the sample collected at the end of the Learning Phase is positive, and samples collected at the end of Period 1 will only be analysed if the sample collected at the end of Period 2 is positive. When subjects obtain a positive PCR/antigen or serology test result during the study, they will continue to be in the study but will be moved into a so-called “COVID-positive” mode in the Ava COVID-RED app. This means that they will no longer receive recommendations from the algorithms but can still contribute and track symptom and bracelet data. The primary analysis of the main objective will be executed using data collected in Period 2 (Month 6 through 9). Within this period, serology tests (before and after Period 2) and PCR/antigen tests (taken based on recommendations by the algorithms) will be used to determine if a subject was infected with SARS-CoV-2 or not. Within this same time period, it will be determined if the algorithms gave any recommendations for testing. The agreement between these quantities will be used to evaluate the performance of the algorithms and how these compare between the study conditions. Randomisation All eligible subjects will be randomized using a stratified block randomization approach with an allocation ratio of 1:1 to one of two sequences (experimental condition followed by control condition or control condition followed by experimental condition). Based on demographics, medical history and/or profession, each subject will be stratified at baseline into a high-risk and normal-risk group within each sequence, resulting in equal numbers of high-risk and normal-risk individuals between the sequences. Blinding (masking) In this study, subjects will be blinded as to study condition and randomization sequence. Relevant study staff and the device manufacturer will be aware of the assigned sequence. The subject will wear the Ava bracelet and complete the Daily Symptom Diary in the Ava COVID-RED app for the full duration of the study, and they will not know if the feedback they receive about their potential infection status will only be based on data they entered in the Daily Symptom Diary within the Ava COVID-RED app or based on both the data from the Daily Symptom Diary and the Ava bracelet. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) 20,000 subjects will be recruited and randomized 1:1 to either Sequence 1 (experimental condition followed by control condition) or Sequence 2 (control condition followed by experimental condition), taking into account their risk level. This results in approximately 6,500 normal-risk and 3,500 high-risk individuals per sequence. Trial Status Protocol version: 1.2, dated January 22nd, 2021 Start of recruitment: February 22nd, 2021 End of recruitment (estimated): April 2021 End of follow-up (estimated): December 2021 Trial registration The trial has been registered at the Netherlands Trial Register on the 18th of February, 2021 with number NL9320 ( https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/9320 ) Full protocol The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol

Enzalutamide in European and North American men participating in the AFFIRM trial

Objective To explore any differences in efficacy and safety outcomes between European (EU) (n = 684) and North American (NA) (n = 395) patients in the AFFIRM trial (NCT00974311).Patients and Methods Phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational AFFIRM trial in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) after docetaxel. Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive oral enzalutamide 160 mg/day or placebo. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in a post hoc analysis.Results Enzalutamide significantly improved OS compared with placebo in both EU and NA patients. The median OS in EU patients was longer than NA patients in both treatment groups. However, the relative treatment effect, expressed as hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval, was similar in both regions: 0.64 (0.50, 0.82) for EU and 0.63 (0.47, 0.83) for NA. Significant improvements in other end points further confirmed the benefit of enzalutamide over placebo in patients from both regions. The tolerability profile of enzalutamide was comparable between EU and NA patients, with fatigue and nausea the most common adverse events. Four EU patients (4/461 enzalutamide-treated, 0.87%) and one NA patient (1/263 enzalutamide-treated, 0.38%) had seizures. The difference in median OS was related in part to the timing of development of mCRPC and baseline demographics on study entry.Conclusion This post hoc exploratory analysis of the AFFIRM trial showed a consistent OS benefit for enzalutamide in men with mCRPC who had previously progressed on docetaxel in both NA- and EU-treated patients, although the median OS was higher in EU relative to NA patients. Efficacy benefits were consistent across end points, with a comparable safety profile in both regions. © 2014 The Authors. BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International

Sex-specific differences in physiological parameters related to SARS-CoV-2 infections among a national cohort (COVI-GAPP study)

Considering sex as a biological variable in modern digital health solutions, we investigated sex-specific differences in the trajectory of four physiological parameters across a COVID-19 infection. A wearable medical device measured breathing rate, heart rate, heart rate variability, and wrist skin temperature in 1163 participants (mean age = 44.1 years, standard deviation [SD] = 5.6; 667 [57%] females). Participants reported daily symptoms and con-founders in a complementary app. A machine learning algorithm retrospectively ingested daily biophysical parameters to detect COVID-19 infections. COVID-19 serology samples were collected from all participants at baseline and follow-up. We analysed potential sex-specific differences in physiology and antibody titres using multilevel modelling and t-tests. Over 1.5 million hours of physiological data were recorded. During the symptomatic period of infection, men demonstrated larger increases in skin temperature, breathing rate, and heart rate as well as larger decreases in heart rate variability than women. The COVID-19 infection detection algorithm performed similarly well for men and women. Our study belongs to the first research to provide evidence for differential physiological responses to COVID-19 between females and males, highlighting the potential of wearable technology to inform future precision medicine approaches

Patient Factors in the Dose Selection of Oral Sumatriptan for Acute Migraine: A Post Hoc Analysis of Two Randomized Controlled Studies

Abstract Introduction Patients are seeking greater involvement in their healthcare. It therefore may be beneficial to provide guidance on initial oral sumatriptan dose selection for the treatment of acute migraine in nontraditional settings, such as telehealth and other remote forms of medical care. We sought to determine whether clinical or demographic factors are predictive of oral sumatriptan dose preference. Methods This was a post hoc analysis of two clinical studies designed to determine preference for 25, 50, or 100 mg oral sumatriptan. Patients were aged 18–65 years with at least a 1 year history of migraine and experienced, on average, between one and six severe or moderately severe migraine attacks per month, with or without aura. Predictive factors were demographic measures, medical history, and migraine characteristics. Possibly predictive factors were identified using three analyses: classification and regression tree analysis, marginal significance (P < 0.1) within a full-model logistic regression, and/or selection within a forward-selection procedure in a logistic regression. A reduced model containing the variables identified in the preliminary analyses was developed. Due to differences in study design, data were not combined. Results A dose preference was expressed by 167 patients in Study 1 and 222 patients in Study 2. Gender and medical history of urologic and/or psychological conditions in Study 1 and duration of migraine history, height, and medical history of endocrine or neurologic disease and headache severity in Study 2 were identified as possibly predictive. The predictive model showed low positive predictive value (PPV; 23.8%) and low sensitivity (21.7%) for Study 1. For Study 2, the model showed moderate PPV (60.0%) but low sensitivity (10.9%). Conclusions No clinical or demographic characteristics alone or in combination were consistently or strongly associated with preference for oral sumatriptan dose level. Trial Registration The studies on which this paper is based were conducted before trial registration indexes were introduced