Confidence in uncertainty: Error cost and commitment in early speech hypotheses

© 2018 Loth et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Interactions with artificial agents often lack immediacy because agents respond slower than their users expect. Automatic speech recognisers introduce this delay by analysing a user’s utterance only after it has been completed. Early, uncertain hypotheses of incremental speech recognisers can enable artificial agents to respond more timely. However, these hypotheses may change significantly with each update. Therefore, an already initiated action may turn into an error and invoke error cost. We investigated whether humans would use uncertain hypotheses for planning ahead and/or initiating their response. We designed a Ghost-in-the-Machine study in a bar scenario. A human participant controlled a bartending robot and perceived the scene only through its recognisers. The results showed that participants used uncertain hypotheses for selecting the best matching action. This is comparable to computing the utility of dialogue moves. Participants evaluated the available evidence and the error cost of their actions prior to initiating them. If the error cost was low, the participants initiated their response with only suggestive evidence. Otherwise, they waited for additional, more confident hypotheses if they still had time to do so. If there was time pressure but only little evidence, participants grounded their understanding with echo questions. These findings contribute to a psychologically plausible policy for human-robot interaction that enables artificial agents to respond more timely and socially appropriately under uncertainty

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Correction to: Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Ethical Implications of the Use of Language Analysis Technologies for the Diagnosis and Prediction of Psychiatric Disorders

Recent developments in artificial intelligence technologies have come to a point where machine learning algorithms can infer mental status based on someone’s photos and texts posted on social media. More than that, these algorithms are able to predict, with a reasonable degree of accuracy, future mental illness. They potentially represent an important advance in mental health care for preventive and early diagnosis initiatives, and for aiding professionals in the follow-up and prognosis of their patients. However, important issues call for major caution in the use of such technologies, namely, privacy and the stigma related to mental disorders. In this paper, we discuss the bioethical implications of using such technologies to diagnose and predict future mental illness, given the current scenario of swiftly growing technologies that analyze human language and the online availability of personal information given by social media. We also suggest future directions to be taken to minimize the misuse of such important technologies

T70. IDENTIFYING YOUTH AT CLINICAL HIGH RISK: WHAT\u27S THE EMOTIONAL IMPACT?...The 2019 Congress of the Schizophrenia International Research Society, April 10-14, 2019, Orlando, Florida

Background In spite of advances in early intervention in major mental illness, concerns linger regarding the risks of identifying youth as at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis. In particular, stigma in this population has been associated with increased emotional distress, social withdrawal, non-engagement in treatment, and suicide risk. Being told one has a CHR syndrome may be one source of stigma, yet no prior studies have conducted assessments both before and after people are given this feedback. Within the context of a larger study of stigma, we compared emotional responses to the CHR concept assessed before and after feedback by study clinicians. Notably, some participants had been already told of their risk prior to study entry whereas others had not. We expected different reactions to study feedback in these two groups. An informed discussion of risk might reduce stigma in those already worried about psychosis whereas it might increase stigma for those considering their risk for the first time. Thus, we predicted a small decrease in negative emotions following feedback in the first group, a small increase in the second, and no significant change in negative emotions for the group as a whole. Methods Fifty-seven CHR participants ages 12–35 were interviewed both before and after receiving formal clinical feedback about their risk status and eligibility for the study. This feedback typically included elements of psychoeducation and information about treatment options. In each interview participants were asked 1) the degree to which they felt 12 emotions in relation to risk for psychosis or schizophrenia, 2) whether they thought it was better to not tell anyone about psychosis risk. We analyzed pre-post change using general linear modeling with group (those told before study entry and those first told in the study context) as a between-subjects variable and the time between pre and post interviews as a covariate. Results Stigma was a significant concern in this sample as the vast majority of participants endorsed It is better that I not tell people that I am at-risk, both before and after feedback (75% pre to 71% post, McNemar test, p = 0.75). However, contrary to our hypothesis, participants experienced a significant decline in negative emotions (embarrassed, different, angry, ashamed, sad, worried; F= 20.7, p \u3c0.001) post- vs. pre-feedback, even controlling for the significant effects of time (M = 16 days between assessments; F= 3.7, p =0.033). This was true for those who reported already having been told that they were at risk for psychosis (N = 35; F = 20.0, p \u3c 0.001) as well as for those who were first told they were at risk in the context of the study (F =4.0, p = 0.038). Strikingly, a third of this latter group continued to report not having been told they were at risk even immediately after feedback. Additionally, in the larger group, ten believed that they already had schizophrenia and two maintained this belief even after being told that they did not. Discussion This is the first study to assess emotional aspects of stigma in CHR youth both before and after formal feedback about their psychosis risk. In contrast to concerns, feedback provided in the context of specialized early psychosis programs may actually reduce distress in these youth. The fact that the number of days between assessments did not fully account for the significant changes in negative emotions suggests that these changes were unlikely to be due to time alone. Importantly, participants\u27 varied impressions of what they had been told or whether they were at risk suggest that feedback is not the only factor influencing self-identification and stigma

Impact of psychosis risk identification: Examining predictors of how youth view themselves.

BACKGROUND: Identifying young people as at clinical high-risk (CHR) for psychosis affords opportunities for intervention to possibly prevent psychosis onset. Yet such CHR identification could plausibly increase stigma. We do not know whether these youth already perceive themselves to be at psychosis-risk (PR) or how their being told they are at PR might impact how they think about themselves. METHODS: 148 CHR youth were asked about labels they had been given by others (labeling by others) or with which they personally identified (self-labeling). They were then asked which had the greatest impact on how they thought about themselves. We evaluated whether being told vs. thinking they were at PR had stronger effects. FINDINGS: The majority identified nonpsychotic disorders rather than PR labels as having the greatest impact on sense of self (67.6% vs. 27.7%). However, participants who identified themselves as at PR had an 8.8 (95% CI = 2.0-39.1) increase in the odds of the PR label having the greatest impact (p \u3c 0.01). Additionally, having been told by others that they were at PR was associated with a 4.0 increase in odds (95% CI = 1.1-15.0) that the PR label had the most impact (p \u3c 0.05). INTERPRETATION: Nonpsychotic disorder labels appear to have a greater impact on CHR youth than psychosis-risk labels. However, thinking they are at PR, and, secondarily, being told they are at PR, appears to increase the relative impact of the PR label. Understanding self- and other-labeling may be important to how young people think of themselves, and may inform early intervention strategies

Emotional and stigma-related experiences relative to being told one is at risk for psychosis.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the appeal of early intervention in psychosis, there is concern that identifying youth as having high psychosis risk (PR) may trigger stigma. This study employed a pre-post design to measure change in PR participants emotions about PR upon being told of their PR status and according to whether this was the first time receiving this information. METHODS: Participants (n = 54) identified as at PR via structured interview rated their emotions about PR before and after being told they were at PR. Qualitative analyses explored the valence of participant reflections on being given this information. RESULTS: Participants reported significantly less negative emotion after being told of their PR status (p < .001), regardless of whether they were hearing this for the first time (p = .72). There was no change in positive emotions or the predominant belief that they should keep their PR status private. Most participants commented positively about the process of feedback but negatively about its impact on their self-perceptions and/or expectations of others perceptions of them. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to collect pre-post data related to being told one is at PR and to examine quantitative and qualitative responses across and within individuals. For a majority of participants, clinical feedback stimulated negative stereotypes even as it relieved some distress. To actively address internalized stigma, clinicians providing feedback to PR youth must attend to the positive and negative impacts on how youth think about themselves as well as how they feel