TRUMMAR - A trust model for mobile agent systems based on reputation

In this paper we present TRUMMAR, a reputation-based trust model that mobile agent systems can use to protect agents from malicious hosts. TRUMMAR is unique in being a truly comprehensive model since it accounts, in a unified framework, for a multitude of concepts such as prior-derived reputation, first impression, loss of reputation information with time, hierarchy of host systems (neighbors, friends, and strangers), and the inclusion of interaction results in reputation calculation. TRUMMAR is also general enough to be applied to any distributed system. We show simulation results that verify the correctness of this model and the effects of its various parameters.1

TRUMMAR - A trust model for mobile agent systems based on reputation

In this paper we present TRUMMAR, a reputation-based trust model that mobile agent systems can use to protect agents from malicious hosts. TRUMMAR is unique in being a truly comprehensive model since it accounts, in a unified framework, for a multitude of concepts such as prior-derived reputation, first impression, loss of reputation information with time, hierarchy of host systems (neighbors, friends, and strangers), and the inclusion of interaction results in reputation calculation. TRUMMAR is also general enough to be applied to any distributed system. We show simulation results that verify the correctness of this model and the effects of its various parameters.1

Management of Patients With Patent Foramen Ovale and Stroke: A National Survey of Interventional Cardiologists and Vascular Neurologists

Background Results from multiple clinical trials support patent foramen ovale closure after cryptogenic stroke in select patients, but it remains unclear how new data and updated professional society guidelines have impacted clinical practice. Here, we aimed to compare how stroke neurologists and interventional cardiologists approach patients with cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale and how critical anatomic and clinical factors influence decision making. Methods and Results An electronic survey was administered to 1556 vascular neurologists and 1057 interventional cardiologists throughout the United States. The survey addressed factors such as patient age, preclosure workup, and postclosure antithrombotics. Clinical vignettes highlighted critical variables and used a 5‐point Likert scale to assess the providers' level of support for closure. There were 491 survey responses received from 301 (of 1556) vascular neurologists and 190 (of 1057) interventional cardiologists, with an overall response rate of 19%. Vascular neurologists were more likely to recommend against closure on the basis of older age (P<0.001). Interventional cardiologists are more supportive of closure across a range of clinical vignettes, including a very carefully selected patient with cryptogenic stroke (P<0.001), a patient with a high‐risk alternative stroke cause (P<0.001), and a range of cases highlighting clinical variables where data are lacking. The majority of interventionalists (88%) seek neurology consultation before pursuing patent foramen ovale closure. Conclusions lnterventional cardiologists are more likely than vascular neurologists to support patent foramen ovale closure across a range of situations. This emphasizes the importance of collaboration and shared decision making, but also reveals an opportunity for professional society educational outreach

Clinicians' Approach to Patent Foramen Ovale Closure after Stroke: Comparing Cardiologists and Neurologists

Background Evidence from randomized trials and updated professional society guidelines supports patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure after cryptogenic stroke in select patients. It is unclear how this has been integrated into real‐world practice, so we aimed to compare practice patterns between cardiologists and neurologists. Methods and Results In March of 2021, a survey of cardiologists and neurologists who work or previously trained at the University of Pennsylvania Health System assessed practice preferences with respect to PFO closure after stroke. Clinical vignettes isolated specific variables of interest and used a 5‐point Likert scale to assess the level of support for PFO closure. Stroke neurologists and interventional cardiologists were compared by Wilcoxon‐Mann–Whitney tests. Secondarily, Kruskal–Wallis tests compared stroke neurologists, general neurologists, interventional cardiologists, and general cardiologists. We received 106 responses from 182 survey recipients (31/31 stroke neurologists, 38/46 interventional cardiologists, 20/30 general neurologists, and 17/77 general cardiologists). A similar proportion of stroke neurologists and interventional cardiologists favored PFO closure in a young patient with cryptogenic stroke, 88% and 87%, respectively ( P =0.54). Interventionalists were more likely than stroke neurologists to support closure in the context of an alternative high‐risk stroke mechanism, 14% and 0%, respectively ( P =0.003). Stroke neurologists were more likely to oppose closure on the basis of older age ( P =0.01). Conclusions There are key differences between how neurologists and cardiologists approach PFO closure after stroke, particularly when interpreting the stroke etiology and when considering closure beyond the scope of prior trials; this underscores the importance of collaboration between cardiologists and neurologists. </jats:sec

Clinicians' Approach to Patent Foramen Ovale Closure after Stroke: Comparing Cardiologists and Neurologists

Background Evidence from randomized trials and updated professional society guidelines supports patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure after cryptogenic stroke in select patients. It is unclear how this has been integrated into real‐world practice, so we aimed to compare practice patterns between cardiologists and neurologists. Methods and Results In March of 2021, a survey of cardiologists and neurologists who work or previously trained at the University of Pennsylvania Health System assessed practice preferences with respect to PFO closure after stroke. Clinical vignettes isolated specific variables of interest and used a 5‐point Likert scale to assess the level of support for PFO closure. Stroke neurologists and interventional cardiologists were compared by Wilcoxon‐Mann–Whitney tests. Secondarily, Kruskal–Wallis tests compared stroke neurologists, general neurologists, interventional cardiologists, and general cardiologists. We received 106 responses from 182 survey recipients (31/31 stroke neurologists, 38/46 interventional cardiologists, 20/30 general neurologists, and 17/77 general cardiologists). A similar proportion of stroke neurologists and interventional cardiologists favored PFO closure in a young patient with cryptogenic stroke, 88% and 87%, respectively (P=0.54). Interventionalists were more likely than stroke neurologists to support closure in the context of an alternative high‐risk stroke mechanism, 14% and 0%, respectively (P=0.003). Stroke neurologists were more likely to oppose closure on the basis of older age (P=0.01). Conclusions There are key differences between how neurologists and cardiologists approach PFO closure after stroke, particularly when interpreting the stroke etiology and when considering closure beyond the scope of prior trials; this underscores the importance of collaboration between cardiologists and neurologists

A review of select human-building interfaces and their relationship to human behavior, energy use and occupant comfort

In recent years, research has emerged to quantitatively and qualitatively understand occupants' interactions with buildings. However, there has been surprisingly little research on building interfaces and how their design, context (e.g., location), and underlying logic impact their usability and occupants’ perceived control, as well as the resulting comfort and energy performance. Research is needed to better understand how occupants interact with building interfaces in both commercial and residential applications; both applications are important to address as there are many differences in interface types, level of control and understanding, and even expectations of engagement. This paper provides a cursory review and discussion of select common building interfaces: windows, window shades/blinds, thermostats, and lighting controls. The goal of this paper is to review literature related to these human-building interfaces to explore interface characteristics, current design and use challenges, and relationships between building interfaces and occupants. Human-building interface interactions are complex, more research is needed to understand design, use, and characteristics. Common themes emerged throughout the literature review to explain occupant interactions (or lack of interactions) with building interfaces, which included thermal and visual comfort, ease and access of control, interface/control placement, poor interface/control design, lack of understanding, and social-behavioral dynamics