Coping with bad agent interaction protocols when monitoring partially observable multiagent systems

Interaction Protocols are fundamental elements to provide the entities in a system, be them actors, agents, services, or other communicating pieces of software, a means to agree on a global interaction pattern and to be sure that all the other entities in the system adhere to it as well. These \u201cglobal interaction patterns\u201d may serve different purposes: if the system does not yet exist, they may specify the allowed interactions in order to drive the system\u2019s implementation and execution. If the system exists before and independently from the protocol, the protocol may still specify the allowed interactions, but it cannot be used to implement them. Its purpose in this case is to monitor that the actual system does respect the rules (runtime verification). Tagging some protocols as good ones and others as bad is common to all the research communities where interaction is crucial, and it is not surprising that some protocol features are recognized as bad ones everywhere. In this paper we analyze the notion of good, bad and ugly protocols in the MAS community and outside, and we discuss the role that bad protocols, despite being bad, may play in a runtime verification scenario where not all the events and interaction channels can be observed

A retrospective study of two populations to test a simple rule for spirometry

BACKGROUND: Chronic lung disease is common and often under-diagnosed. METHODS: To test a simple rule for conducting spirometry we reviewed spirograms from two populations, occupational medicine evaluations (OME) conducted by Saint Louis and Wake Forest Universities at 3 sites (n = 3260, mean age 64.14 years, 95 % CI 58.94–69.34, 97 % men) and conducted by Wake Forest University preop clinic (POC) at one site (n = 845, mean age 62.10 years, 95 % CI 50.46–73.74, 57 % men). This retrospective review of database information that the first author collected prospectively identified rates, types, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive value for lung function abnormalities and associated mortality rate found when conducting spirometry based on the 20/40 rule (≥20 years of smoking in those aged ≥ 40 years) in the OME population. To determine the reproducibility of the 20/40 rule for conducting spirometry, the rule was applied to the POC population. RESULTS: A lung function abnormality was found in 74 % of the OME population and 67 % of the POC population. Sensitivity of the rule was 85 % for an obstructive pattern and 77 % for any abnormality on spirometry. Positive and negative predictive values of the rule for a spirometric abnormality were 74 and 55 %, respectively. Patients with an obstructive pattern were at greater risk of coronary heart disease (odds ratio (OR) 1.39 [confidence interval (CI) 1.00–1.93] vs. normal) and death (hazard ratio (HR) 1.53, 95 % CI 1.20–1.84) than subjects with normal spirometry. Restricted spirometry patterns were also associated with greater risk of coronary disease (odds ratio (OR) 1.7 [CI 1.23–2.35]) and death (Hazard ratio 1.40, 95 % CI 1.08–1.72). CONCLUSIONS: Smokers (≥ 20 pack years) age ≥ 40 years are at an increased risk for lung function abnormalities and those abnormalities are associated with greater presence of coronary heart disease and increased all-cause mortality. Use of the 20/40 rule could provide a simple method to enhance selection of candidates for spirometry evaluation in the primary care setting

Indigenous Healing Practices in India: Shamanism, Spirit Possession, and Healing Shrines.

This chapter undertakes an exhaustive review of the vast literature on indigenous healing within anthropology and psychology. Although the topic of ritual healing has been popular within anthropology, in more recent times, it has also drawn the interest of scholars in psychology and related fields. Much of the early research on indigenous healing or ritual healing focussed on the practices of healing cults and indigenous healers and shamans in non-Western contexts. These studies approached healing in terms of symbolic practices and performances. More recently, however, scholars have looked at the everyday contexts of healing, studying situations where people turn to alternative healing practices for relief from illness or distress. Accordingly, the key terms for these practices have changed, with ‘ritual healing’ and ‘indigenous healing’ giving way to ‘everyday healing’ or, often, simply healing. In tracing these changes in the study of healing, this chapter addresses the key questions about efficacy and effectiveness that are central to this field of study. While arguing for the powerful place of diverse healing practices in society, this chapter cautions against simplistic attempts to incorporate alternative healing within biomedical practices of treatment and cure