Real Proof I

The trial of an issue of fact is an epistemic, a logical, and a legal affair. In its epistemic aspect it can be viewed as a process of learning: By means of the trial the jury acquires the knowledge which it must have in order to decide the issue. The analysis of this aspect of a trial is primarily concerned with the different kinds of knowledge and with the various ways in which knowledge is obtained. In its logical aspect the trial of an issue of fact can be viewed as a process of teaching: By their proof and disproof of the contradictory propositions of which the issue is constituted, the litigants impart to the jury the knowledge which it needs in order to resolve the issue. The analysis of this aspect of a trial distinguishes the kinds of propositions which are employed in the proof and disproof of material propositions, formulates the conditions of the assertion of propositions as true or false or as probable to some degree, and states the rules of contradiction and of inference \u27which are the criteria of the formal validity of the probative processes which litigants undertake. In its legal aspect a trial can be viewed as a judicially administered proceeding designed to resolve material issues, but serving other ends as well. The rules of procedural law which govern the judicial administration of a trial, having these various ends in view, determine how a jury may acquire the knowledge it needs and what litigants may do in their efforts at proof and disproof

Dynamic virtual reality user interface for teleoperation of heterogeneous robot teams

This research investigates the possibility to improve current teleoperation control for heterogeneous robot teams using modern Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) techniques such as Virtual Reality. It proposes a dynamic teleoperation Virtual Reality User Interface (VRUI) framework to improve the current approach to teleoperating heterogeneous robot teams

Micro-robotic Cell Injection Training in a CAVE

This paper focuses on the design of an evaluation made to a large-scale virtual reality micro-robotic cell injection training system. The aim of the evaluation is to empirically investigate the usability and effectiveness of three distinct display configurations and the input controller employed in the system. The data was gathered through a set of experiments with human participants. Participants’ performance against metrics such as success rate and magnitude of error was considered in the evaluation. For the experiments, participants were randomly divided into six equal sized groups where each group was provided with a specific combination of display configuration and haptic guidance mode. The participants performed ten injections and the time and position of the virtual micropipette tip were recorded. Data was analysed using descriptive statistics and performance comparison between groups was conducted. Additionally three groups also underwent two subsequent sessions, training and post-training, as a basis to evaluate the effectiveness of the training with haptic guidance by comparing participants’ performance before and after the training session. The implementation of the designed evaluation has contributed to the conclusions drawn which suggest the proposed large-scale virtual reality system as a feasible training tool for micro-robotic cell injection procedure, and recommendations for future work are proposed

Primary care use of antipsychotic drugs: an audit and intervention study

BACKGROUND: Concerns regarding the use of antipsychotic medication in secondary care suggested an examination of primary care prescribing. AIM: To audit and intervene in the suboptimal prescribing of antipsychotic drugs to primary care patients. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cross-sectional prevalence: subsequent open treatment intervention. SETTING: Seven of the 29 practices in the Eastern Hull Primary Care Trust. METHODS: Criteria for best practice were developed, against which prescribing standards were tested via audit. Patients identified as suboptimally prescribed for were invited to attend an expert review for intervention. RESULTS: 1 in 100 of 53,000 patients was prescribed antipsychotic treatment. Diagnoses indicating this were impossible to ascertain reliably. Half the regimes failed one or more audit criteria, leaving diagnosis aside. Few practices agreed to patients being approached: of 179 invitations sent, only 40 patients attended. Of 32 still taking an antipsychotic drug, 26 required changes. Mean audit criteria failed were 3.4, lack of psychotic disorder diagnosis and problematic side effects being most frequent. Changes were fully implemented in only 16 patients: reasons for complete or partial failure to implement recommendations included the wishes or inaction of patients and professionals, and worsening of symptoms including two cases of antipsychotic withdrawal syndrome. CONCLUSION: Primary care prescribing of antipsychotic drugs is infrequent, but most is unsatisfactory. Intervention is hampered by pluralistic reluctance: even with expert guidance, rationalisation is not without risk. Use of antipsychotic drugs in primary care patients whose diagnosis does not warrant this should be avoided. HOW THIS FITS IN: This study adds to concerns regarding high levels of off-licence use of potentially harmful medication. It adds evidence of major difficulties in rationalizing suboptimal regimes despite expert input. Relevance to the clinician is that it is better to avoid such regimes in the first place especially if there is no clear 'exit strategy': if in doubt, seek a specialist opinion

Low rate of bacterial co-infection in patients with COVID-19

We agree with Michael J Cox and colleagues1 that clinical management of COVID-19 would be enhanced by further characterisation of bacterial co-infections. A few case reports have described examples of such co-infections.2, 3, 4 However, national5 and international6 guidelines recommend empirical antibiotics for all patients who are severely ill with suspected COVID-19, and that cessation of therapy is left to the clinicians' discretion. Pending the widespread availability of metagenomic sequencing as envisaged by Cox and colleagues,1 we argue that traditional diagnostics still have a role