Guidelines for Modeling and Reporting Health Effects of Climate Change Mitigation Actions.

BACKGROUND: Modeling suggests that climate change mitigation actions can have substantial human health benefits that accrue quickly and locally. Documenting the benefits can help drive more ambitious and health-protective climate change mitigation actions; however, documenting the adverse health effects can help to avoid them. Estimating the health effects of mitigation (HEM) actions can help policy makers prioritize investments based not only on mitigation potential but also on expected health benefits. To date, however, the wide range of incompatible approaches taken to developing and reporting HEM estimates has limited their comparability and usefulness to policymakers. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this effort was to generate guidance for modeling studies on scoping, estimating, and reporting population health effects from climate change mitigation actions. METHODS: An expert panel of HEM researchers was recruited to participate in developing guidance for conducting HEM studies. The primary literature and a synthesis of HEM studies were provided to the panel. Panel members then participated in a modified Delphi exercise to identify areas of consensus regarding HEM estimation. Finally, the panel met to review and discuss consensus findings, resolve remaining differences, and generate guidance regarding conducting HEM studies. RESULTS: The panel generated a checklist of recommendations regarding stakeholder engagement: HEM modeling, including model structure, scope and scale, demographics, time horizons, counterfactuals, health response functions, and metrics; parameterization and reporting; approaches to uncertainty and sensitivity analysis; accounting for policy uptake; and discounting. DISCUSSION: This checklist provides guidance for conducting and reporting HEM estimates to make them more comparable and useful for policymakers. Harmonization of HEM estimates has the potential to lead to advances in and improved synthesis of policy-relevant research that can inform evidence-based decision making and practice. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6745

Design of fractional order 2-DOF PI controller for real-time control of heat flow experiment

This paper presents a two degree of freedom fractional order PI controller for temperature control of a real-time Heat Flow Experiment (HFE). The introduction of two degrees of freedom and fractional calculus to PI controller enhances its flexibility at the cost of large number of tuning parameters and controller design becomes a combinatorial problem. Controller parameters are therefore optimized by a meta-heuristic algorithm called as water cycle algorithm (WCA) which leads to WCA tuned two degree of freedom fractional order PI (W2FPI) controller. The present work also explores the potential of WCA as an effective controller tuning technique. The convergence analysis of WCA justifies its effectiveness with respect to state-of-the-art optimizers i.e. genetic algorithm, simulated annealing, dragonfly algorithm, flower pollination algorithm, cuckoo search algorithm, particle swarm optimization, differential evolution and artificial bee colony algorithm. Investigation reveals the superiority of W2FPI controller in comparison to its WCA tuned integer order variant W2PI and conventional PI controller. Keyword: 2-DOF FOPI Controller, Heat flow experiment, Water cycle algorithm, Optimizatio

Multi-Drug Scheduling for Chemotherapy Using Fractional Order Internal Model Controller

Chemotherapy is a widely used cancer treatment method globally. However, cancer cells can develop resistance towards single-drug-based chemotherapy if it is infused for extended periods, resulting in treatment failure in many cases. To address this issue, oncologists have progressed towards using multi-drug chemotherapy (MDC). This method considers different drug concentrations for cancer treatment, but choosing incorrect drug concentrations can adversely affect the patient’s body. Therefore, it is crucial to recognize the trade-off between drug concentrations and their adverse effects. To address this issue, a closed-loop multi-drug scheduling based on Fractional Order Internal-Model-Control Proportional Integral (IMC-FOPI) Control is proposed. The proposed scheme combines the benefits of fractional PI and internal model controllers. Additionally, the parameters of IMC-FOPI are optimally tuned using a random walk-based Moth-flame optimization. The performance of the proposed controller is compared with PI and Two degrees of freedom PI (2PI) controllers for drug concentration control at the tumor site. The results reveal that the proposed control scheme improves the settling time by 43% and 21% for VX, 54% and 48 % for VY, and 48% and 40% for VZ, respectively, compared to PI and 2PI. Therefore, it can be concluded that the proposed control scheme is more efficient in scheduling multi-drug than conventional controllers

Guidelines for Modeling and Reporting Health Effects of Climate Change Mitigation Actions.

BACKGROUND: Modeling suggests that climate change mitigation actions can have substantial human health benefits that accrue quickly and locally. Documenting the benefits can help drive more ambitious and health-protective climate change mitigation actions; however, documenting the adverse health effects can help to avoid them. Estimating the health effects of mitigation (HEM) actions can help policy makers prioritize investments based not only on mitigation potential but also on expected health benefits. To date, however, the wide range of incompatible approaches taken to developing and reporting HEM estimates has limited their comparability and usefulness to policymakers. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this effort was to generate guidance for modeling studies on scoping, estimating, and reporting population health effects from climate change mitigation actions. METHODS: An expert panel of HEM researchers was recruited to participate in developing guidance for conducting HEM studies. The primary literature and a synthesis of HEM studies were provided to the panel. Panel members then participated in a modified Delphi exercise to identify areas of consensus regarding HEM estimation. Finally, the panel met to review and discuss consensus findings, resolve remaining differences, and generate guidance regarding conducting HEM studies. RESULTS: The panel generated a checklist of recommendations regarding stakeholder engagement: HEM modeling, including model structure, scope and scale, demographics, time horizons, counterfactuals, health response functions, and metrics; parameterization and reporting; approaches to uncertainty and sensitivity analysis; accounting for policy uptake; and discounting. DISCUSSION: This checklist provides guidance for conducting and reporting HEM estimates to make them more comparable and useful for policymakers. Harmonization of HEM estimates has the potential to lead to advances in and improved synthesis of policy-relevant research that can inform evidence-based decision making and practice. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6745

Guidelines for Modeling and Reporting Health Effects of Climate Change Mitigation Actions

BACKGROUND: Modeling suggests that climate change mitigation actions can have substantial human health benefits that accrue quickly and locally. Documenting the benefits can help drive more ambitious and health-protective climate change mitigation actions; however, documenting the adverse health effects can help to avoid them. Estimating the health effects of mitigation (HEM) actions can help policy makers prioritize investments based not only on mitigation potential but also on expected health benefits. To date, however, the wide range of incompatible approaches taken to developing and reporting HEM estimates has limited their comparability and usefulness to policymakers. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this effort was to generate guidance for modeling studies on scoping, estimating, and reporting population health effects from climate change mitigation actions. METHODS: An expert panel of HEM researchers was recruited to participate in developing guidance for conducting HEM studies. The primary literature and a synthesis of HEM studies were provided to the panel. Panel members then participated in a modified Delphi exercise to identify areas of consensus regarding HEM estimation. Finally, the panel met to review and discuss consensus findings, resolve remaining differences, and generate guidance regarding conducting HEM studies. RESULTS: The panel generated a checklist of recommendations regarding stakeholder engagement: HEM modeling, including model structure, scope and scale, demographics, time horizons, counterfactuals, health response functions, and metrics; parameterization and reporting; approaches to uncertainty and sensitivity analysis; accounting for policy uptake; and discounting. DISCUSSION: This checklist provides guidance for conducting and reporting HEM estimates to make them more comparable and useful for policymakers. Harmonization of HEM estimates has the potential to lead to advances in and improved synthesis of policy-relevant research that can inform evidence-based decision making and practice. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6745