Replicability is not Reproducibility:\ud Nor is it Good Science

At various machine learning conferences, at various times, there have been discussions arising from the inability to replicate the experimental results published in a paper. There seems to be a wide spread view that we need to do something to address this problem, as it is essential to the advancement of our field. The most compelling argument would seem to be that reproducibility of experimental results is the hallmark of science. Therefore, given that most of us regard machine learning as a scientific discipline, being able to replicate experiments is paramount. I want to challenge this view by separating the notion of reproducibility, a generally desirable property, from replicability, its poor cousin. I claim there are important differences between the two. Reproducibility requires changes; replicability avoids them. Although reproducibility is desirable, I contend that the impoverished version, replicability, is one not worth having

Reproducible Research: a Dissenting Opinion

Reproducible Research, the de facto title of a growing movement\ud within many scientific fields, would require the code, used to\ud generate the experimental results, be published along with any\ud paper. Probably the most compelling argument for this is that it is\ud simply following good scientific practice, established over the\ud years by the greats of science. It is further claimed that\ud misconduct is causing a growing crisis of confidence in science.\ud That, without this requirement being enforced, science would\ud inevitably fall into disrepute. This viewpoint is becoming\ud ubiquitous but here I offer a dissenting opinion. I contend that\ud the consequences are somewhat overstated. Misconduct is far from\ud solely a recent phenomenon; science has succeeded despite it.\ud Further, I would argue that the problem of public trust is more to\ud do with other factors. I would also contend that the effort\ud necessary to meet the movement's aims, and the general attitude it\ud engenders, would not serve any of the research disciplines well

String Breaking in Quenched QCD

We present preliminary quenched results on a new operator for the investigation of string-breaking within SU(2)-colour QCD. The ground-state of a spatially-separated static-light meson-antimeson pair is a combination of a state with two distinct mesons, expected to dominate for large separations, and a state where the light-quarks have annihilated, which contributes for short distances. The crossover between these two regimes provides a measure of the string-breaking scale length.Comment: LATTICE98(confine), 3 pages, 4 figure

Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement

<p>Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.</p> <p>The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp).</p> <p>We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.</p&gt

Drosophila type II neuroblast lineages keep Prospero levels low to generate large clones that contribute to the adult brain central complex

Tissue homeostasis depends on the ability of stem cells to properly regulate self-renewal versus differentiation. Drosophila neural stem cells (neuroblasts) are a model system to study self-renewal and differentiation. Recent work has identified two types of larval neuroblasts that have different self-renewal/differentiation properties. Type I neuroblasts bud off a series of small basal daughter cells (ganglion mother cells) that each generate two neurons. Type II neuroblasts bud off small basal daughter cells called intermediate progenitors (INPs), with each INP generating 6 to 12 neurons. Type I neuroblasts and INPs have nuclear Asense and cytoplasmic Prospero, whereas type II neuroblasts lack both these transcription factors. Here we test whether Prospero distinguishes type I/II neuroblast identity or proliferation profile, using several newly characterized Gal4 lines. We misexpress prospero using the 19H09-Gal4 line (expressed in type II neuroblasts but no adjacent type I neuroblasts) or 9D11-Gal4 line (expressed in INPs but not type II neuroblasts). We find that differential prospero expression does not distinguish type I and type II neuroblast identities, but Prospero regulates proliferation in both type I and type II neuroblast lineages. In addition, we use 9D11 lineage tracing to show that type II lineages generate both small-field and large-field neurons within the adult central complex, a brain region required for locomotion, flight, and visual pattern memory

Treatment Switching: statistical and decision making challenges and approaches

Objectives: Treatment switching refers to the situation in a randomised controlled trial where patients switch from their randomly assigned treatment onto an alternative. Often, switching is from the control group onto the experimental treatment. In this instance, a standard intention-to-treat analysis does not identify the true comparative effectiveness of the treatments under investigation. We aim to describe statistical methods for adjusting for treatment switching in a comprehensible way for non-statisticians, and to summarise views on these methods expressed by stakeholders at the 2014 Adelaide International Workshop on Treatment Switching in Clinical Trials. Methods: We describe three statistical methods used to adjust for treatment switching: marginal structural models, two-stage adjustment, and rank preserving structural failure time models. We draw upon discussion heard at the Adelaide International Workshop to explore the views of stakeholders on the acceptability of these methods. Results: Stakeholders noted that adjustment methods are based on assumptions, the validity of which may often be questionable. There was disagreement on the acceptability of adjustment methods, but consensus that when these are used, they should be justified rigorously. The utility of adjustment methods depends upon the decision being made and the processes used by the decision-maker. Conclusions: Treatment switching makes estimating the true comparative effect of a new treatment challenging. However, many decision-makers have reservations with adjustment methods. These, and how they affect the utility of adjustment methods, require further exploration. Further technical work is required to develop adjustment methods to meet real world needs, to enhance their acceptability to decision-makers

Constrained optimal control of monotone systems with applications to battery fast-charging

Enabling fast charging for lithium ion batteries is critical to accelerating the green energy transition. As such, there has been significant interest in tailored fast-charging protocols computed from the solutions of constrained optimal control problems. Here, we derive necessity conditions for a fast charging protocol based upon monotone control systems theory

Occupational Therapist Licensure Revocation by State Licensing Boards

Occupational therapists must abide by certain standards to maintain a license to practice. Despite the existence of various studies on licensure revocation in other health care professions, no prior research has been conducted regarding occupational therapist licensure revocations. The purpose of this study was to examine reasons for occupational therapy licensure revocations in the United States from 2005 to 2015. A retrospective descriptive study design was completed. Data were collected from public databases on state websites or through communication with state licensure board representatives. From 2005 to 2015, 65 occupational therapists had their licenses revoked in 40 states and the District of Columbia. Fraud and criminal conviction were the two most frequently cited reasons for licensure revocations in the majority female sample. The south region of the United States displayed the most license revocations when compared to other regions. The results of this study may enhance the education of occupational therapists, occupational therapy assistants, and students about ethical decision-making in practice. A standardized protocol used by all states in determining licensure revocation is recommended. Additional research on all occupational therapy disciplinary actions could further benefit occupational therapy curricula

Treatment switching in cancer trials: Issues and proposals

Objectives: Treatment switching occurs when patients in a randomized clinical trial switch from the treatment initially assigned to them to another treatment, typically from the control to experimental treatment. This study discusses the issues this raises and possible approaches to addressing them in trials of cancer drugs. Methods: Stakeholders from around the world were invited to a 1.5-day Workshop in Adelaide, Australia. This study attempts to capture the key points from the discussion and the perspectives of the various stakeholder groups, but is not a formal consensus statement. Results: Treatment switching raises challenging ethical issues with arguments for and against allowing it. It is increasingly common in cancer drug trials and presents challenges for the interpretation of results by regulators, clinicians, patients, and payers. Proposals are offered for good practice in the design, management, and analysis of trials and wider development programs for cancer drugs in which treatment switching has occurred or is likely to. Recommendations are also offered for further action to improve understanding of the importance and challenges of treatment switching and to promote agreement between key stakeholders on guidelines and other steps to address these challenges. Conclusions: The handling of treatment switching in trials is of concern to all stakeholders. On the basis of the discussions at the Adelaide International Workshop, there would appear to be common ground on approaches to addressing treatment switching in cancer trials and scope for the development of formal guidelines to inform the work of regulators, payers, industry, trial designers and other stakeholders

Aizerman Conjectures for a class of multivariate positive systems

The Aizerman Conjecture predicts stability for a class of nonlinear control systems on the basis of linear system stability analysis. The conjecture is known to be false in general. Here, a number of Aizerman conjectures are shown to be true for a class of internally positive multivariate systems, under a natural generalisation of the classical sector condition and, moreover, guarantee positivity in closed loop. These results are stronger and/or more general than existing results. The paper relates the obtained results to other, diverse, results in the literature