User evaluation of comfortable deceleration profiles for highly automated driving: Findings from a test track study

As automated vehicles advance and become more widespread, it is increasingly important to ensure optimal driving comfort for passengers. Recent research has focused on developing driving styles for automated vehicles that are perceived to be most comfortable. However, there is still little understanding of whether, and how, possible driving styles need to be adjusted for specific traffic scenarios. In this study, 36 participants experienced three different deceleration profiles (a linear deceleration profile ‘One-Step’, and two versions of stepwise deceleration profiles ‘Two-Step V1 and V2’) across different driving scenarios (deceleration before curves, approaching a speed-limit sign, and a stop sign). Deceleration profiles were rated by participants and the impact of non-driving related activities on driving comfort was investigated. Results showed a positive rating for all deceleration profiles in terms of comfort. For decelerations to a standstill at a Stop Sign, participants seemed to prefer the One-Step approach, in which there is a continuous, and constant deceleration. However, participants described the Two-Step V1 as a gentle and calmer approach and ranked it more frequently as a personal favourite than the One-Step profile or the Two-Step V2 profile. The visual distraction of the passenger through a non-driving activity had no impact on passenger comfort or profile preferences for the scenarios tested within this study. Nonetheless, participants reported perceiving a lower intensity of longitudinal vehicle movements when visually distracted during the drive. The results of the study provide insights into the design and implementation of comfortable deceleration profiles

Serum antibodies against genitourinary infectious agents in prostate cancer and benign prostate hyperplasia patients: a case-control study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Infection plays a role in the pathogenesis of many human malignancies. Whether prostate cancer (PCa) - an important health issue in the aging male population in the Western world - belongs to these conditions has been a matter of research since the 1970 s. Persistent serum antibodies are a proof of present or past infection. The aim of this study was to compare serum antibodies against genitourinary infectious agents between PCa patients and controls with benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). We hypothesized that elevated serum antibody levels or higher seroprevalence in PCa patients would suggest an association of genitourinary infection in patient history and elevated PCa risk.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A total of 434 males who had undergone open prostate surgery in a single institution were included in the study: 329 PCa patients and 105 controls with BPH. The subjects' serum samples were analysed by means of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, complement fixation test and indirect immunofluorescence for the presence of antibodies against common genitourinary infectious agents: human papillomavirus (HPV) 6, 11, 16, 18, 31 and 33, herpes simplex virus (HSV) 1 and 2, human cytomegalovirus (CMV), Chlamydia trachomatis, Mycoplasma hominis, Ureaplasma urealyticum, Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Treponema pallidum. Antibody seroprevalence and mean serum antibody levels were compared between cases and controls. Tumour grade and stage were correlated with serological findings.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>PCa patients were more likely to harbour antibodies against Ureaplasma urealyticum (odds ratio (OR) 2.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-4.28). Men with BPH were more often seropositive for HPV 18 and Chlamydia trachomatis (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.09-0.61 and OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21-0.99, respectively) and had higher mean serum CMV antibody levels than PCa patients (p = 0.0004). Among PCa patients, antibodies against HPV 6 were associated with a higher Gleason score (p = 0.0305).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Antibody seropositivity against the analyzed pathogens with the exception of Ureaplasma does not seem to be a risk factor for PCa pathogenesis. The presence or higher levels of serum antibodies against the genitourinary pathogens studied were not consistently associated with PCa. Serostatus was not a predictor of disease stage in the studied population.</p

Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy versus GnRH analogue in the adjuvant treatment of premenopausal breast cancer patients : cost-effectiveness evaluation of breast cancer outcome, ovarian cancer prevention and treatment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There is no available evidence to recommend gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue-based ovarian suppression versus bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) in the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer, since the two approaches are considered equivalent in terms of oncologic outcome. The role of surgical ovarian ablation has been revitalized based on the advances of minimally invasive surgery, and a better understanding of clinical and molecular basis of hereditary breast/ovarian cancer syndromes. The aim of this study is to analyze the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic BSO and GnRH analogue administration in patients aged 40-49 years with hormone-sensitive breast cancer. METHODS: A probabilistic decision tree model was developed to evaluate costs and outcomes of ovarian ablation through laparoscopic BSO, or ovarian suppression through monthly injections of GnRH analogue. Results were expressed as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. RESULTS: Laparoscopic BSO strategy was associated with a lower mean total cost per patient than GnRH treatment, and considering the difference in terms of QALYs, the incremental effectiveness did not demonstrate a notable difference between the two approaches. From the National Health Service perspective, and for a time horizon of 5 years, laparoscopic BSO was the dominant option compared to GnRH treatment; laparoscopic BSO was less expensive than GnRH, €2385 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2044, 2753] vs €7093 (95% CI = 3409, 12,105), respectively, and more effective. CONCLUSION: Surgical ovarian ablation is more cost-effective than GnRH administration in the adjuvant treatment of hormone-sensitive breast cancer patients aged 40-49 years, and the advantage of preventing ovarian cancer through laparoscopic BSO should be considered