Technology-Facilitated Domestic and Family Violence: Protecting the Privacy and Safety of Victim-Survivors

Technology and privacy can be a double-edged sword for those experiencing domestic and family violence (DFV). Technology can be a mechanism for abuse and coercive control but is also offered to victim-survivors as a ‘solution’ to reduce risk and protect their safety. In theory, the law protects the privacy rights of victim-survivors, but poor practice and lapses in security mean that their information is often shared with those who seek to harm them. Perpetrators, particularly alleged perpetrators, also have a right to privacy, making it more difficult to protect victim-survivors. This paper analyses technology-facilitated domestic and family violence (TFDFV) through a privacy lens—drawing on privacy and DFV literature (and the little that lies at the intersection) and doctrinal analysis of Australian and New Zealand privacy and related laws applied to TFDFV. Recommendations are provided to better protect victim-survivors at the intersection of safety, technology and privacy. While the paper focuses on the Australian and New Zealand context, it hopes to motivate similar questions in other jurisdictions

Treatment methods for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in England: a cost‐effectiveness analysis

Objective To compare the cost-effectiveness of different treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Design A cost-effectiveness analysis based on data available in the literature and expert opinion. Setting England. Population Women treated for CIN. Methods We developed a decision-analytic model to simulate the clinical course of 1000 women who received local treatment for CIN and were followed up for 10 years after treatment. In the model we considered surgical complications as well as oncological and reproductive outcomes over the 10-year period. The costs calculated were those incurred by the National Health Service (NHS) of England. Main outcome measures Cost per one CIN2+ recurrence averted (oncological outcome); cost per one preterm birth averted (reproductive outcome); overall cost per one adverse oncological or reproductive outcome averted. Results For young women of reproductive age, large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) was the most cost-effective treatment overall at all willingness-to-pay thresholds. For postmenopausal women, LLETZ remained the most cost-effective treatment up to a threshold of £31,500, but laser conisation became the most cost-effective treatment above that threshold. Conclusions LLETZ is the most cost-effective treatment for both younger and older women. However, for older women, more radical excision with laser conisation could also be considered if the NHS is willing to spend more than £31,500 to avert one CIN2+ recurrence

Comparative effectiveness and risk of preterm birth of local treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and stage IA1 cervical cancer : a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground: The trade-off between comparative effectiveness and reproductive morbidity of different treatment methods for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) remains unclear. We aimed to determine the risks of treatment failure and preterm birth associated with various treatment techniques. Methods: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database for randomised and non-randomised studies reporting on oncological or reproductive outcomes after CIN treatments from database inception until March 9, 2022, without language restrictions. We included studies of women with CIN, glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, or stage IA1 cervical cancer treated with excision (cold knife conisation [CKC], laser conisation, and large loop excision of the transformation zone [LLETZ]) or ablation (radical diathermy, laser ablation, cold coagulation, and cryotherapy). We excluded women treated with hysterectomy. The primary outcomes were any treatment failure (defined as any abnormal histology or cytology) and preterm birth (<37 weeks of gestation). The network for preterm birth also included women with untreated CIN (untreated colposcopy group). The main reference group was LLETZ for treatment failure and the untreated colposcopy group for preterm birth. For randomised controlled trials, we extracted group-level summary data, and for observational studies, we extracted relative treatment effect estimates adjusted for potential confounders, when available, and we did random-effects network meta-analyses to obtain odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. We assessed within-study and across-study risk of bias using Cochrane tools. This systematic review is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018115495 and CRD42018115508. Findings: 7880 potential citations were identified for the outcome of treatment failure and 4107 for the outcome of preterm birth. After screening and removal of duplicates, the network for treatment failure included 19 240 participants across 71 studies (25 randomised) and the network for preterm birth included 68 817 participants across 29 studies (two randomised). Compared with LLETZ, risk of treatment failure was reduced for other excisional methods (laser conisation: OR 0·59 [95% CI 0·44–0·79] and CKC: 0·63 [0·50–0·81]) and increased for laser ablation (1·69 [1·27–2·24]) and cryotherapy (1·84 [1·33–2·56]). No differences were found for the comparison of cold coagulation versus LLETZ (1·09 [0·68–1·74]) but direct data were based on two small studies only. Compared with the untreated colposcopy group, risk of preterm birth was increased for all excisional techniques (CKC: 2·27 [1·70–3·02]; laser conisation: 1·77 [1·29–2·43]; and LLETZ: 1·37 [1·16–1·62]), whereas no differences were found for ablative methods (laser ablation: 1·05 [0·78–1·41]; cryotherapy: 1·01 [0·35–2·92]; and cold coagulation: 0·67 [0·02–29·15]). The evidence was based mostly on observational studies with their inherent risks of bias, and the credibility of many comparisons was low. Interpretation: More radical excisional techniques reduce the risk of treatment failure but increase the risk of subsequent preterm birth. Although there is uncertainty, ablative treatments probably do not increase risk of preterm birth, but are associated with higher failure rates than excisional techniques. Although we found LLETZ to have balanced effectiveness and reproductive morbidity, treatment choice should rely on a woman's age, size and location of lesion, and future family planning. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research: Research for Patient Benefit.Peer reviewe

Future research directions on the "elusive" white shark

White sharks, Carcharodon carcharias, are often described as elusive, with little information available due to the logistical difficulties of studying large marine predators that make long-distance migrations across ocean basins. Increased understanding of aggregation patterns, combined with recent advances in technology have, however, facilitated a new breadth of studies revealing fresh insights into the biology and ecology of white sharks. Although we may no longer be able to refer to the white shark as a little-known, elusive species, there remain numerous key questions that warrant investigation and research focus. Although white sharks have separate populations, they seemingly share similar biological and ecological traits across their global distribution. Yet, white shark’s behavior and migratory patterns can widely differ, which makes formalizing similarities across its distribution challenging. Prioritization of research questions is important to maximize limited resources because white sharks are naturally low in abundance and play important regulatory roles in the ecosystem. Here, we consulted 43 white shark experts to identify these issues. The questions listed and developed here provide a global road map for future research on white sharks to advance progress toward key goals that are informed by the needs of the research community and resource managers

Lumbar segmental mobility disorders: comparison of two methods of defining abnormal displacement kinematics in a cohort of patients with non-specific mechanical low back pain

BACKGROUND: Lumbar segmental rigidity (LSR) and lumbar segmental instability (LSI) are believed to be associated with low back pain (LBP), and identification of these disorders is believed to be useful for directing intervention choices. Previous studies have focussed on lumbar segmental rotation and translation, but have used widely varying methodologies. Cut-off points for the diagnosis of LSR & LSI are largely arbitrary. Prevalence of these lumbar segmental mobility disorders (LSMDs) in a non-surgical, primary care LBP population has not been established. METHODS: A cohort of 138 consecutive patients with recurrent or chronic low back pain (RCLBP) were recruited in this prospective, pragmatic, multi-centre study. Consenting patients completed pain and disability rating instruments, and were referred for flexion-extension radiographs. Sagittal angular rotation and sagittal translation of each lumbar spinal motion segment was measured from the radiographs, and compared to a reference range derived from a study of 30 asymptomatic volunteers. In order to define reference intervals for normal motion, and define LSR and LSI, we approached the kinematic data using two different models. The first model used a conventional Gaussian definition, with motion beyond two standard deviations (2sd) from the reference mean at each segment considered diagnostic of rotational LSMD and translational LSMD. The second model used a novel normalised within-subjects approach, based on mean normalised contribution-to-total-lumbar-motion. An LSMD was then defined as present in any segment that contributed motion beyond 2sd from the reference mean contribution-to-normalised-total-lumbar-motion. We described reference intervals for normal segmental mobility, prevalence of LSMDs under each model, and the association of LSMDs with pain and disability. RESULTS: With the exception of the conventional Gaussian definition of rotational LSI, LSMDs were found in statistically significant prevalences in patients with RCLBP. Prevalences at both the segmental and patient level were generally higher using the normalised within-subjects model (2.8 to 16.8% of segments; 23.3 to 35.5% of individuals) compared to the conventional Gaussian model (0 to 15.8%; 4.7 to 19.6%). LSMDs are associated with presence of LBP, however LSMDs do not appear to be strongly associated with higher levels of pain or disability compared to other forms of non-specific LBP. CONCLUSION: LSMDs are a valid means of defining sub-groups within non-specific LBP, in a conservative care population of patients with RCLBP. Prevalence was higher using the normalised within-subjects contribution-to-total-lumbar-motion approach

Differential cross section measurements for the production of a W boson in association with jets in proton–proton collisions at √s = 7 TeV

Measurements are reported of differential cross sections for the production of a W boson, which decays into a muon and a neutrino, in association with jets, as a function of several variables, including the transverse momenta (pT) and pseudorapidities of the four leading jets, the scalar sum of jet transverse momenta (HT), and the difference in azimuthal angle between the directions of each jet and the muon. The data sample of pp collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 7 TeV was collected with the CMS detector at the LHC and corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 5.0 fb[superscript −1]. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions from Monte Carlo generators, MadGraph + pythia and sherpa, and to next-to-leading-order calculations from BlackHat + sherpa. The differential cross sections are found to be in agreement with the predictions, apart from the pT distributions of the leading jets at high pT values, the distributions of the HT at high-HT and low jet multiplicity, and the distribution of the difference in azimuthal angle between the leading jet and the muon at low values.United States. Dept. of EnergyNational Science Foundation (U.S.)Alfred P. Sloan Foundatio

Optimasi Portofolio Resiko Menggunakan Model Markowitz MVO Dikaitkan dengan Keterbatasan Manusia dalam Memprediksi Masa Depan dalam Perspektif Al-Qur`an

Risk portfolio on modern finance has become increasingly technical, requiring the use of sophisticated mathematical tools in both research and practice. Since companies cannot insure themselves completely against risk, as human incompetence in predicting the future precisely that written in Al-Quran surah Luqman verse 34, they have to manage it to yield an optimal portfolio. The objective here is to minimize the variance among all portfolios, or alternatively, to maximize expected return among all portfolios that has at least a certain expected return. Furthermore, this study focuses on optimizing risk portfolio so called Markowitz MVO (Mean-Variance Optimization). Some theoretical frameworks for analysis are arithmetic mean, geometric mean, variance, covariance, linear programming, and quadratic programming. Moreover, finding a minimum variance portfolio produces a convex quadratic programming, that is minimizing the objective function ðð¥with constraintsð ð 𥠥 ðandð´ð¥ = ð. The outcome of this research is the solution of optimal risk portofolio in some investments that could be finished smoothly using MATLAB R2007b software together with its graphic analysis