Use of expert elicitation to assign weights to climate and hydrological models in climate impact studies

Various methods are available for assessing uncertainties in climate impact studies. Among such methods, model weighting by expert elicitation is a practical way to provide a weighted ensemble of models for specific real-world impacts. The aim is to decrease the influence of improbable models in the results and easing the decision-making process. In this study both climate and hydrological models are analysed, and the result of a research experiment is presented using model weighting with the participation of six climate model experts and six hydrological model experts. For the experiment, seven climate models are a priori selected from a larger EURO-CORDEX (Coordinated Regional Downscaling Experiment - European Domain) ensemble of climate models, and three different hydrological models are chosen for each of the three European river basins. The model weighting is based on qualitative evaluation by the experts for each of the selected models based on a training material that describes the overall model structure and literature about climate models and the performance of hydrological models for the present period. The expert elicitation process follows a three-stage approach, with two individual rounds of elicitation of probabilities and a final group consensus, where the experts are separated into two different community groups: a climate and a hydrological modeller group. The dialogue reveals that under the conditions of the study, most climate modellers prefer the equal weighting of ensemble members, whereas hydrological-impact modellers in general are more open for assigning weights to different models in a multi-model ensemble, based on model performance and model structure. Climate experts are more open to exclude models, if obviously flawed, than to put weights on selected models in a relatively small ensemble. The study shows that expert elicitation can be an efficient way to assign weights to different hydrological models and thereby reduce the uncertainty in climate impact. However, for the climate model ensemble, comprising seven models, the elicitation in the format of this study could only re-establish a uniform weight between climate models

Renewable, ethical? Assessing the energy justice potential of renewable electricity

Energy justice is increasingly being used as a framework to conceptualize the impacts of energy decision making in more holistic ways and to consider the social implications in terms of existing ethical values. Similarly, renewable energy technologies are increasingly being promoted for their environmental and social benefits. However, little work has been done to systematically examine the extent to which, in what ways and in what contexts, renewable energy technologies can contribute to achieving energy justice. This paper assesses the potential of renewable electricity technologies to address energy justice in various global contexts via a systematic review of existing studies analyzed in terms of the principles and dimensions of energy justice. Based on publications including peer reviewed academic literature, books, and in some cases reports by government or international organizations, we assess renewable electricity technologies in both grid integrated and off-grid use contexts. We conduct our investigation through the rubric of the affirmative and prohibitive principles of energy justice and in terms of its temporal, geographic, socio-political, economic, and technological dimensions. Renewable electricity technology development has and continue to have different impacts in different social contexts, and by considering the different impacts explicitly across global contexts, including differences between rural and urban contexts, this paper contributes to identifying and understanding how, in what ways, and in what particular conditions and circumstances renewable electricity technologies may correspond with or work to promote energy justice

Rivaroxaban or aspirin for patent foramen ovale and embolic stroke of undetermined source: a prespecified subgroup analysis from the NAVIGATE ESUS trial

Background: Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a contributor to embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). Subgroup analyses from previous studies suggest that anticoagulation could reduce recurrent stroke compared with antiplatelet therapy. We hypothesised that anticoagulant treatment with rivaroxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, would reduce the risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke compared with aspirin among patients with PFO enrolled in the NAVIGATE ESUS trial. Methods: NAVIGATE ESUS was a double-blinded, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 459 centres in 31 countries that assessed the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban versus aspirin for secondary stroke prevention in patients with ESUS. For this prespecified subgroup analysis, cohorts with and without PFO were defined on the basis of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE). The primary efficacy outcome was time to recurrent ischaemic stroke between treatment groups. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding, according to the criteria of the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis. The primary analyses were based on the intention-to-treat population. Additionally, we did a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of studies in which patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO were randomly assigned to receive anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy. Findings: Between Dec 23, 2014, and Sept 20, 2017, 7213 participants were enrolled and assigned to receive rivaroxaban (n=3609) or aspirin (n=3604). Patients were followed up for a mean of 11 months because of early trial termination. PFO was reported as present in 534 (7·4%) patients on the basis of either TTE or TOE. Patients with PFO assigned to receive aspirin had a recurrent ischaemic stroke rate of 4·8 events per 100 person-years compared with 2·6 events per 100 person-years in those treated with rivaroxaban. Among patients with known PFO, there was insufficient evidence to support a difference in risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke between rivaroxaban and aspirin (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54; 95% CI 0·22–1·36), and the risk was similar for those without known PFO (1·06; 0·84–1·33; pinteraction=0·18). The risks of major bleeding with rivaroxaban versus aspirin were similar in patients with PFO detected (HR 2·05; 95% CI 0·51–8·18) and in those without PFO detected (HR 2·82; 95% CI 1·69–4·70; pinteraction=0·68). The random-effects meta-analysis combined data from NAVIGATE ESUS with data from two previous trials (PICSS and CLOSE) and yielded a summary odds ratio of 0·48 (95% CI 0·24–0·96; p=0·04) for ischaemic stroke in favour of anticoagulation, without evidence of heterogeneity. Interpretation: Among patients with ESUS who have PFO, anticoagulation might reduce the risk of recurrent stroke by about half, although substantial imprecision remains. Dedicated trials of anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy or PFO closure, or both, are warranted. Funding: Bayer and Janssen