Human Autonomy Teaming - The Teamwork of the Future

Dies ist ein Herausgeberwerk.Der Zusammenarbeit von Mensch und Technik kommt angesichts technologischer Fortschritte eine immer größere Bedeutung zu. Das Human Autonomy Teaming (HAT) birgt in diesem Zusammenhang als neue Form der Teamarbeit zwischen menschlichen Teammitgliedern und technischen Einheiten, sogenannten autonomen Agenten, ein großes Potenzial. Der Mensch kooperiert mit seinem technischen Teammitglied und wird von diesem bei gemeinsamen Aufgaben im Team unterstützt. Beide Akteure ergänzen sich mit ihren individuellen Stärken gegenseitig im Team. In diesem Buch sind aktuelle Themen im Rahmen des HAT für Forscher/innen und Praktiker/innen übersichtlich aufbereitet, um gemeinsam zur erfolgreichen Umsetzung autonomer Agenten als Teammitglied des Menschen im Sinne eines HAT beitragen zu können. In Kapitel 1 wird in das Thema eingeleitet, grundlegende Definitionen und Modelle für das gesamte Werk vorgestellt sowie die Potentiale des HAT aufgezeigt. Kapitel 2 thematisiert menschliche und technische Anforderungen für erfolgreiches HAT, bevor in Kapitel 3 näher auf die Zusammenarbeit zwischen Mensch und Technik und die damit einhergehenden Stärken und Schwächen eingegangen wird. Kapitel 4 liefert Einblicke in aktuelle Anwendungsgebiete des HAT. Abschließend werden in Kapitel 5 zukünftige Entwicklungen des HAT diskutiert. As a result of technological advances, collaboration between humans and technology is becoming increasingly important. In this context, Human Autonomy Teaming (HAT), as a new form of teamwork between humans and technology, so-called autonomous agents, has great potential and offers many possibilities in research and application. Both team members complement each other with their individual strengths striving to achieve a common goal. In this book, current topics within the framework of the HAT are clearly presented for researchers and practitioners in order to be able to jointly contribute to the successful implementation of autonomous agents as team members in the sense of HAT. Chapter 1 introduces the topic, basic definitions and models for the entire work, and shows the potential of HAT. Chapter 2 deals with human and technological requirements for successful HAT, before chapter 3 goes into more detail on the cooperation between humans and technology and the associated strengths and weaknesses. Chapter 4 provides insights into current fields of application of HAT. Finally, in Chapter 5, future developments of HAT are discussed

A multicenter assessment of interreader reliability of LI-RADS version 2018 for MRI and CT

Background: Various limitations have impacted research evaluating reader agreement for Liver Imaging-Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS). Purpose: To assess reader agreement of LI-RADS in an international multi-center, multireader setting using scrollable images. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study used de-identified clinical multiphase CT and MRI examinations and reports with at least one untreated observation from six institutions and three countries; only qualifying examinations were submitted. Examination dates were October 2017 – August 2018 at the coordinating center. One untreated observation per examination was randomly selected using observation identifiers, and its clinically assigned features were extracted from the report. The corresponding LI-RADS v2018 category was computed as a re-scored clinical read. Each examination was randomly assigned to two of 43 research readers who independently scored the observation. Agreement for an ordinal modified four-category LI-RADS scale (LR-1/2, LR-3, LR-4, LR-5/M/tumor in vein) was computed using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). Agreement was also computed for dichotomized malignancy (LR-4/LR5/LR-M/LR-tumor in vein), LR-5, and LR-M. Agreement was compared between researchversus-research reads and research-versus-clinical reads. Results: 484 patients (mean age, 62 years ±10 [SD]; 156 women; 93 CT, 391 MRI) were included. ICCs for ordinal LI-RADS, dichotomized malignancy, LR-5, and LR-M were 0.68 (95% CI: 0.62, 0.74), 0.63 (95% CI: 0.56, 0.71), 0.58 (95% CI: 0.50, 0.66), and 0.46 (95% CI: 0.31, 0.61) respectively. Research-versus-research reader agreement was higher than research-versus-clinical agreement for modified four-category LI-RADS (ICC, 0.68 vs. 0.62, P = .03) and for dichotomized malignancy (ICC, 0.63 vs. 0.53, P = .005), but not for LR-5 (P = .14) or LR-M (P = .94). Conclusion: There was moderate agreement for Liver Imaging-Reporting and Data System v2018 overall. For some comparisons, research-versus-research reader agreement was higher than research-versus-clinical reader agreement, indicating differences between the clinical and research environments that warrant further study

Industrielle Mikroplastikemissionen - Handlungsempfehlungen

EmiStop ist ein Projekt, welches in der Initiative „Plastik in der Umwelt“ des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung über drei Jahre die Eintragspfade von Mikroplastik (ausgenommen Fasern und Rezyklate) in der kunststoffproduzierenden und -verarbeitenden Industrie sowie der zwischengeschalteten Logistik mit Fokus auf das Wassermanagement und die (Ab)Wasserinfrastruktur untersucht hat. In enger Zusammenarbeit mit einzelnen Betriebsstandorten und Industrieverbänden sowie durch Betriebsbegehungen, Probenahmen und Laboranalysen wurden angepasste Probenahmestrategien und -methoden, analytische Verfahren für Mikroplastik sowie Maßnahmen zur Vermeidung des Eintrags von Mikroplastik in die Umwelt entwickelt. Ein Projektergebnis stellen diese Handlungsempfehlungen für Akteur:innen aus der Industrie dar. Sie sollen als Leitfaden dienen, um Mikroplastikemissionen in die Umwelt an Betriebsstandorten zu vermeiden oder zu vermindern

A Multicenter Assessment of Interreader Reliability of LI-RADS Version 2018 for MRI and CT.

Background Various limitations have impacted research evaluating reader agreement for Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS). Purpose To assess reader agreement of LI-RADS in an international multicenter multireader setting using scrollable images. Materials and Methods This retrospective study used deidentified clinical multiphase CT and MRI and reports with at least one untreated observation from six institutions and three countries; only qualifying examinations were submitted. Examination dates were October 2017 to August 2018 at the coordinating center. One untreated observation per examination was randomly selected using observation identifiers, and its clinically assigned features were extracted from the report. The corresponding LI-RADS version 2018 category was computed as a rescored clinical read. Each examination was randomly assigned to two of 43 research readers who independently scored the observation. Agreement for an ordinal modified four-category LI-RADS scale (LR-1, definitely benign; LR-2, probably benign; LR-3, intermediate probability of malignancy; LR-4, probably hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]; LR-5, definitely HCC; LR-M, probably malignant but not HCC specific; and LR-TIV, tumor in vein) was computed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Agreement was also computed for dichotomized malignancy (LR-4, LR-5, LR-M, and LR-TIV), LR-5, and LR-M. Agreement was compared between research-versus-research reads and research-versus-clinical reads. Results The study population consisted of 484 patients (mean age, 62 years ± 10 [SD]; 156 women; 93 CT examinations, 391 MRI examinations). ICCs for ordinal LI-RADS, dichotomized malignancy, LR-5, and LR-M were 0.68 (95% CI: 0.61, 0.73), 0.63 (95% CI: 0.55, 0.70), 0.58 (95% CI: 0.50, 0.66), and 0.46 (95% CI: 0.31, 0.61) respectively. Research-versus-research reader agreement was higher than research-versus-clinical agreement for modified four-category LI-RADS (ICC, 0.68 vs 0.62, respectively; P = .03) and for dichotomized malignancy (ICC, 0.63 vs 0.53, respectively; P = .005), but not for LR-5 (P = .14) or LR-M (P = .94). Conclusion There was moderate agreement for LI-RADS version 2018 overall. For some comparisons, research-versus-research reader agreement was higher than research-versus-clinical reader agreement, indicating differences between the clinical and research environments that warrant further study. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorials by Johnson and Galgano and Smith in this issue