Activation of kinase phosphorylation by heat-shift and mild heat-shock

Most cells activate intracellular signalling to recover from heat damage. An increase of temperature, known as HS (heat shock), induces two major signalling events: the transcriptional induction of HSPs (heat-shock proteins) and the activation of the MAPK (mitogen-activated protein kinase) cascade. We performed the present study to examine the effects of HS, induced by different experimental conditions, on various kinases [ERK (extracellular-signal-regulated kinase), JNK (c-Jun N-terminal kinase), p38, Akt, AMPK (AMP-activated protein kinase) and PKC (protein kinase C)]. We investigated by Western blot analysis the phosphorylation of MAPK as a measure of cellular responsiveness to heat shift (37°C) and mild HS (40°C) in different cell lines. The results of the study indicate that every cell line responded to heat shift, and to a greater extent to HS, increasing ERK and JNK phosphorylation, whereas variable effects on activation or inhibition of PKC, AMPK, Akt and p38 were observed. Besides the implications of intracellular signalling activated by heat variations, these data may be of technical relevance, indicating possible sources of error due to different experimental temperature conditions

Measurement uncertainty propagation in transistor model parameters via polynomial chaos expansion

We present an analysis of the propagation of measurement uncertainty in microwave transistor nonlinear models. As a case study, we focus on residual calibration uncertainty and its effect on modeled nonlinear capacitances extracted from small-signal microwave measurements. We evaluate the uncertainty by means of the polynomial chaos expansion (PCE) method and compare the results with the NIST Microwave Uncertainty Framework, which enables both sensitivity and Monte Carlo (MC) analyses for uncertainty quantification in microwave measurements. We demonstrate that, for the considered application, PCE provides results in agreement with classical MC simulations but with a significant reduction of the computational effort

The interplay between risk and protective factors during the initial height of the COVID-19 crisis in Italy: The role of risk aversion and intolerance of ambiguity on distress

The present study aimed to test a model of relations to ascertain the determinants of distress caused by lockdown for COVID- 19. It was hypothesized that the exposure to the COVID-19 increased distress directly and through the mediation of worry, health-related information seeking, and perception of the utility of the lockdown. It was also expected that higher levels of ambiguity intolerance corresponded to higher distress directly and through the mediation of worry, health information seeking behaviors, and perceived utility of the lockdown. Finally, it was expected that risk aversion positively influenced distress directly and through the increasing of worry, health-related information seeking behavior, and more positive perception of the utility of the lockdown The study was conducted in Italy during the mandatory lockdown for COVID-19 pandemic on 240 individuals (age range 18\u201376). Data recruitment was conducted via snowball sampling. COVID-19 exposure was positively associated with worry and health-related information seeking. Risk-aversion was positively associated with health-related information seeking and perceived utility of the lockdown to contain the spread of the virus. Worry and health-related information seeking were positively associated with distress, whereas the perceived utility of the lockdown was negatively associated with distress. Intolerance for the ambiguity was directly linked to distress with a positive sign. Findings suggest that risk aversion represents both a risk factor and a protective factor, based on what kind of variable mediates the relationship with distress, and that the intolerance to the ambiguity is a risk factor that busters distress

The factor structure of the Forms of Self-Criticising/Attacking & Self-Reassuring Scale in thirteen distinct populations

There is considerable evidence that self-criticism plays a major role in the vulnerability to and recovery from psychopathology. Methods to measure this process, and its change over time, are therefore important for research in psychopathology and well-being. This study examined the factor structure of a widely used measure, the Forms of Self-Criticising/Attacking & Self-Reassuring Scale in thirteen nonclinical samples (N = 7510) from twelve different countries: Australia (N = 319), Canada (N = 383), Switzerland (N = 230), Israel (N = 476), Italy (N = 389), Japan (N = 264), the Netherlands (N = 360), Portugal (N = 764), Slovakia (N = 1326), Taiwan (N = 417), the United Kingdom 1 (N = 1570), the United Kingdom 2 (N = 883), and USA (N = 331). This study used more advanced analyses than prior reports: a bifactor item-response theory model, a two-tier item-response theory model, and a non-parametric item-response theory (Mokken) scale analysis. Although the original three-factor solution for the FSCRS (distinguishing between Inadequate-Self, Hated-Self, and Reassured-Self) had an acceptable fit, two-tier models, with two general factors (Self-criticism and Self-reassurance) demonstrated the best fit across all samples. This study provides preliminary evidence suggesting that this two-factor structure can be used in a range of nonclinical contexts across countries and cultures. Inadequate-Self and Hated-Self might not by distinct factors in nonclinical samples. Future work may benefit from distinguishing between self-correction versus shame-based self-criticism.Peer reviewe

Comparing Discrete Choice Experiment with Swing Weighting to Estimate Attribute Relative Importance:A Case Study in Lung Cancer Patient Preferences

Introduction: Discrete choice experiments (DCE) are commonly used to elicit patient preferences and to determine the relative importance of attributes but can be complex and costly to administer. Simpler methods that measure relative importance exist, such as swing weighting with direct rating (SW-DR), but there is little empirical evidence comparing the two. This study aimed to directly compare attribute relative importance rankings and weights elicited using a DCE and SW-DR. Methods: A total of 307 patients with non–small-cell lung cancer in Italy and Belgium completed an online survey assessing preferences for cancer treatment using DCE and SW-DR. The relative importance of the attributes was determined using a random parameter logit model for the DCE and rank order centroid method (ROC) for SW-DR. Differences in relative importance ranking and weights between the methods were assessed using Cohen’s weighted kappa and Dirichlet regression. Feedback on ease of understanding and answering the 2 tasks was also collected. Results: Most respondents (&gt;65%) found both tasks (very) easy to understand and answer. The same attribute, survival, was ranked most important irrespective of the methods applied. The overall ranking of the attributes on an aggregate level differed significantly between DCE and SW-ROC (P &lt; 0.01). Greater differences in attribute weights between attributes were reported in DCE compared with SW-DR (P &lt; 0.01). Agreement between the individual-level attribute ranking across methods was moderate (weighted Kappa 0.53–0.55). Conclusion: Significant differences in attribute importance between DCE and SW-DR were found. Respondents reported both methods being relatively easy to understand and answer. Further studies confirming these findings are warranted. Such studies will help to provide accurate guidance for methods selection when studying relative attribute importance across a wide array of preference-relevant decisions. Both DCEs and SW tasks can be used to determine attribute relative importance rankings and weights; however, little evidence exists empirically comparing these methods in terms of outcomes or respondent usability. Most respondents found the DCE and SW tasks very easy or easy to understand and answer. A direct comparison of DCE and SW found significant differences in attribute importance rankings and weights as well as a greater spread in the DCE-derived attribute relative importance weights.</p

Comparing Discrete Choice Experiment with Swing Weighting to Estimate Attribute Relative Importance:A Case Study in Lung Cancer Patient Preferences

Introduction: Discrete choice experiments (DCE) are commonly used to elicit patient preferences and to determine the relative importance of attributes but can be complex and costly to administer. Simpler methods that measure relative importance exist, such as swing weighting with direct rating (SW-DR), but there is little empirical evidence comparing the two. This study aimed to directly compare attribute relative importance rankings and weights elicited using a DCE and SW-DR. Methods: A total of 307 patients with non–small-cell lung cancer in Italy and Belgium completed an online survey assessing preferences for cancer treatment using DCE and SW-DR. The relative importance of the attributes was determined using a random parameter logit model for the DCE and rank order centroid method (ROC) for SW-DR. Differences in relative importance ranking and weights between the methods were assessed using Cohen’s weighted kappa and Dirichlet regression. Feedback on ease of understanding and answering the 2 tasks was also collected. Results: Most respondents (&gt;65%) found both tasks (very) easy to understand and answer. The same attribute, survival, was ranked most important irrespective of the methods applied. The overall ranking of the attributes on an aggregate level differed significantly between DCE and SW-ROC (P &lt; 0.01). Greater differences in attribute weights between attributes were reported in DCE compared with SW-DR (P &lt; 0.01). Agreement between the individual-level attribute ranking across methods was moderate (weighted Kappa 0.53–0.55). Conclusion: Significant differences in attribute importance between DCE and SW-DR were found. Respondents reported both methods being relatively easy to understand and answer. Further studies confirming these findings are warranted. Such studies will help to provide accurate guidance for methods selection when studying relative attribute importance across a wide array of preference-relevant decisions. Both DCEs and SW tasks can be used to determine attribute relative importance rankings and weights; however, little evidence exists empirically comparing these methods in terms of outcomes or respondent usability. Most respondents found the DCE and SW tasks very easy or easy to understand and answer. A direct comparison of DCE and SW found significant differences in attribute importance rankings and weights as well as a greater spread in the DCE-derived attribute relative importance weights.</p

Comparing Discrete Choice Experiment with Swing Weighting to Estimate Attribute Relative Importance:A Case Study in Lung Cancer Patient Preferences

Introduction: Discrete choice experiments (DCE) are commonly used to elicit patient preferences and to determine the relative importance of attributes but can be complex and costly to administer. Simpler methods that measure relative importance exist, such as swing weighting with direct rating (SW-DR), but there is little empirical evidence comparing the two. This study aimed to directly compare attribute relative importance rankings and weights elicited using a DCE and SW-DR. Methods: A total of 307 patients with non–small-cell lung cancer in Italy and Belgium completed an online survey assessing preferences for cancer treatment using DCE and SW-DR. The relative importance of the attributes was determined using a random parameter logit model for the DCE and rank order centroid method (ROC) for SW-DR. Differences in relative importance ranking and weights between the methods were assessed using Cohen’s weighted kappa and Dirichlet regression. Feedback on ease of understanding and answering the 2 tasks was also collected. Results: Most respondents (&gt;65%) found both tasks (very) easy to understand and answer. The same attribute, survival, was ranked most important irrespective of the methods applied. The overall ranking of the attributes on an aggregate level differed significantly between DCE and SW-ROC (P &lt; 0.01). Greater differences in attribute weights between attributes were reported in DCE compared with SW-DR (P &lt; 0.01). Agreement between the individual-level attribute ranking across methods was moderate (weighted Kappa 0.53–0.55). Conclusion: Significant differences in attribute importance between DCE and SW-DR were found. Respondents reported both methods being relatively easy to understand and answer. Further studies confirming these findings are warranted. Such studies will help to provide accurate guidance for methods selection when studying relative attribute importance across a wide array of preference-relevant decisions. Both DCEs and SW tasks can be used to determine attribute relative importance rankings and weights; however, little evidence exists empirically comparing these methods in terms of outcomes or respondent usability. Most respondents found the DCE and SW tasks very easy or easy to understand and answer. A direct comparison of DCE and SW found significant differences in attribute importance rankings and weights as well as a greater spread in the DCE-derived attribute relative importance weights.</p

A study on text-score disagreement in online reviews

In this paper, we focus on online reviews and employ artificial intelligence tools, taken from the cognitive computing field, to help understanding the relationships between the textual part of the review and the assigned numerical score. We move from the intuitions that 1) a set of textual reviews expressing different sentiments may feature the same score (and vice-versa); and 2) detecting and analyzing the mismatches between the review content and the actual score may benefit both service providers and consumers, by highlighting specific factors of satisfaction (and dissatisfaction) in texts. To prove the intuitions, we adopt sentiment analysis techniques and we concentrate on hotel reviews, to find polarity mismatches therein. In particular, we first train a text classifier with a set of annotated hotel reviews, taken from the Booking website. Then, we analyze a large dataset, with around 160k hotel reviews collected from Tripadvisor, with the aim of detecting a polarity mismatch, indicating if the textual content of the review is in line, or not, with the associated score. Using well established artificial intelligence techniques and analyzing in depth the reviews featuring a mismatch between the text polarity and the score, we find that -on a scale of five stars- those reviews ranked with middle scores include a mixture of positive and negative aspects. The approach proposed here, beside acting as a polarity detector, provides an effective selection of reviews -on an initial very large dataset- that may allow both consumers and providers to focus directly on the review subset featuring a text/score disagreement, which conveniently convey to the user a summary of positive and negative features of the review target.Comment: This is the accepted version of the paper. The final version will be published in the Journal of Cognitive Computation, available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12559-017-9496-