Automatic Generation of Bayesian networks in Forensic Science

This work was supported in part by the European Research Council under project ERC-2013-AdG339182-BAYES KNOWLEDG

The Opportunity Prior: A Simple and Practical Solution to the Prior Probability Problem for Legal Cases

One of the greatest impediments to the use of probabilistic reasoning in legal arguments is the difficulty in agreeing on an appropriate prior probability for the ultimate hypothesis, (in criminal cases this is normally “Defendant is guilty of the crime for which he/she is accused”). Even strong supporters of a Bayesian approach prefer to ignore priors and focus instead on considering only the likelihood ratio (LR) of the evidence. But the LR still requires the decision maker (be it a judge or juror during trial, or anybody helping to determine beforehand whether a case should proceed to trial) to consider their own prior; without it the LR has limited value. We show that, in a large class of cases, it is possible to arrive at a realistic prior that is also as consistent as possible with the legal notion of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. The approach can be considered as a formalisation of the ‘island problem’ whereby if it is known the crime took place on an island when n people were present, then each of the people on the island has an equal prior probability 1/n of having carried out the crime. Our prior is based on simple location and time parameters that determine both a) the crime scene/time (within which it is certain the crime took place) and b) the extended crime scene/time which is the ‘smallest’ within which it is certain the suspect was known to have been ‘closest’ in location/time to the crime scene. The method applies to cases where we assume a crime has taken place and that it was committed by one person against one other person (e.g. murder, assault, robbery). The paper considers both the practical and legal implications of the approach. We demonstrate how the opportunity prior probability is naturally incorporated into a generic Bayesian network model that allows us to integrate other evidence about the case

Exploring synergies between human rights and public health ethics: A whole greater than the sum of its parts

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The fields of human rights and public health ethics are each concerned with promoting health and elucidating norms for action. To date, however, little has been written about the contribution that these two justificatory frameworks can make together. This article explores how a combined approach may make a more comprehensive contribution to resolving normative health issues and to advancing a normative framework for global health action than either approach made alone. We explore this synergy by first providing overviews of public health ethics and of international human rights law relevant to health and, second, by articulating complementarities between human rights and public health ethics.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>We argue that public health ethics can contribute to human rights by: (a) reinforcing the normative claims of international human rights law, (b) strengthening advocacy for human rights, and (c) bridging the divide between public health practitioners and human rights advocates in certain contemporary health domains. We then discuss how human rights can contribute to public health ethics by contributing to discourses on the determinants of health through: (a) definitions of the right to health and the notion of the indivisibility of rights, (b) emphasis on the duties of states to progressively realize the health of citizens, and (c) recognition of the protection of human rights as itself a determinant of health. We also discuss the role that human rights can play for the emergent field of public health ethics by refocusing attention on the health and illness on marginalized individuals and populations.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>Actors within the fields of public health, ethics and human rights can gain analytic tools by embracing the untapped potential for collaboration inherent in such a combined approach.</p

German ambulatory care physicians' perspectives on clinical guidelines – a national survey

BACKGROUND: There has been little systematic research about the extent to which German physicians accept or reject the concept and practice of a) clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and b) evidence based medicine (EBM) The aim of this study was to investigate German office-based physicians' perspective on CPGs and EBM and their application in medical practice. METHODS: Structured national telephone survey of ambulatory care physicians, four thematic blocks with 21 questions (5 point Likert scale). 511 office-based general practitioners and specialists. Main outcome measures were the application of Clinical Practice Guidelines in daily practice, preference for sources of guidelines and degree of knowledge and acceptance of EBM. In the data analysis Pearson's correlation coefficient was used for explorative analysis of correlations. The comparison of groups was performed by Student's t-test. Chi(2 )test was used to investigate distribution of two or more categorical variables. RESULTS: Of the total study population 55.3% of physicians reported already using guidelines in the treatment of patients. Physicians in group practices (GrP) as well as general practitioners (GP) agreed significantly more with the usefulness of guidelines as a basis for patient care than doctors in single practices (SP) or specialists (S) (Student's t-test mean GP 2.57, S 2.84, p < 0.01; mean GrP 2.55, SP 2.80, p < 0.05). 33.1% of the participants demonstrated a strong rejection to the application of guidelines in patient care. Acceptance of guidelines from a governmental institution was substantially lower than from physician networks or medical societies (36.2% vs. 53.4% vs. 62.0%). 73.8% of doctors interpret EBM as a combination of scientific research and individual medical knowledge; 80% regard EBM as the best basis for patient care. CONCLUSION: Despite a majority of physicians accepting and applying CPGs a large group remains that is critical and opposed to the utilization of CPGs in daily practice and to the concept of EBM in general. Doctors in single practice and specialists appear to be more critical than physicians in group practices and GPs. Future research is needed to evaluate the willingness to acquire necessary knowledge and skills for the promotion and routine application of CPGs

How do we know that research ethics committees are really working? The neglected role of outcomes assessment in research ethics review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Countries are increasingly devoting significant resources to creating or strengthening research ethics committees, but there has been insufficient attention to assessing whether these committees are actually improving the protection of human research participants.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Research ethics committees face numerous obstacles to achieving their goal of improving research participant protection. These include the inherently amorphous nature of ethics review, the tendency of regulatory systems to encourage a focus on form over substance, financial and resource constraints, and conflicts of interest. Auditing and accreditation programs can improve the quality of ethics review by encouraging the development of standardized policies and procedures, promoting a common base of knowledge, and enhancing the status of research ethics committees within their own institutions. However, these mechanisms focus largely on questions of structure and process and are therefore incapable of answering many critical questions about ethics committees' actual impact on research practices.</p> <p>The first step in determining whether research ethics committees are achieving their intended function is to identify what prospective research participants and their communities hope to get out of the ethics review process. Answers to this question can help guide the development of effective outcomes assessment measures. It is also important to determine whether research ethics committees' guidance to investigators is actually being followed. Finally, the information developed through outcomes assessment must be disseminated to key decision-makers and incorporated into practice. This article offers concrete suggestions for achieving these goals.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Outcomes assessment of research ethics committees should address the following questions: First, does research ethics committee review improve participants' understanding of the risks and potential benefits of studies? Second, does the process affect prospective participants' decisions about whether to participate in research? Third, does it change participants' subjective experiences in studies or their attitudes about research? Fourth, does it reduce the riskiness of research? Fifth, does it result in more research responsive to the local community's self-identified needs? Sixth, is research ethics committees' guidance to researchers actually being followed?</p