Workers’ right to the subject: The social relations of data production

The use of data to profile and make decisions about data subjects for citizenship, targeted advertising, job recruitment and other reasons, has been eminently normalised, which is an emerging threat to protected spaces for personal subjectivation and identity formation. The ‘right to the subject’; or to agency via personal subject formation outside bilateral profiling; is at stake. This is especially true for workers. Algorithmic management infused with worker control mechanisms occurs in structurally and objectively unequal conditions within subjective, and unequal, social relations. Data harms protections in European privacy and data protection law, despite being heralded as the strongest in the world, are insufficient to protect workers’ right to the subject. Indeed, structural features of inequality within the capitalist data political economy mean that workers experience different power relations to consumers and citizens. Analysing the social relations surrounding policy features of ‘consent’, and ‘risk’, with focus on the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the negotiations for the AI Act, it is not difficult to see that these policies do not protect all data subjects’ rights to the subject identically. Indeed, workers never have the capacity to truly consent at work; and the risks workers face are different from that of other data subjects, such as consumers. Data subjects do not, across categories, have equal access to equality, within, and because of, the social relations of data production. From a cross-disciplinary perspective and with contributions to sociology, critical theory, media and policy studies, this article argues that workers’ right to the subject is at stake, in datafied social relations

Making algorithmic management safe and healthy for workers: addressing psychosocial risks in new legal provisions

The increasing deployment of algorithmic management in the workplace poses significant occupational safety and health risks for workers. In this article, we argue that existing and proposed EU regulatory frameworks are inadequate to address these risks, especially psychosocial risks, created or exacerbated by algorithmic management. While existing and proposed regulatory frameworks have significant implications for employers’ obligations to mitigate these risks, we identify several psychosocial risks created or exacerbated by algorithmic management and show how the current and proposed regulatory frameworks fall short of adequately addressing these risks. We observe that these frameworks, based largely in the ‘safety by design’ tradition, focus on the design phase of the technology lifecycle. This focus does not adequately address risks that arise in the use or deployment stage of algorithmic management. There is therefore a need for a standalone piece of legislation at the EU level on algorithmic management. To address these shortcomings, we outline suggestions for provisions necessary toward safe and healthy digitally managed work

Examining empathy deficits across familial forms of frontotemporal dementia within the GENFI cohort

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).Background: Reduced empathy is a common symptom in frontotemporal dementia (FTD). Although empathy deficits have been extensively researched in sporadic cases, few studies have explored the differences in familial forms of FTD. Methods: Empathy was examined using a modified version of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (mIRI) in 676 participants from the Genetic FTD Initiative: 216 mutation-negative controls, 192 C9orf72 expansion carriers, 193 GRN mutation carriers and 75 MAPT mutation carriers. Using global scores from the CDR® plus NACC FTLD, mutation carriers were divided into three groups, asymptomatic (0), very mildly symptomatic/prodromal (.5), or fully symptomatic (1 or more). The mIRI Total score, as well as the subscores of Empathic Concern (EC) and Perspective Taking (PT) were assessed. Linear regression models with bootstrapping were used to assess empathy ratings across genetic groups, as well as across phenotypes in the symptomatic carriers. Neural correlates of empathy deficits were examined using a voxel-based morphometry (VBM) analysis. Results: All fully symptomatic groups scored lower on the mIRI Total, EC, and PT when compared to controls and their asymptomatic or prodromal counterparts (all p < .001). Prodromal C9orf72 expansion carriers also scored significantly lower than controls on the mIRI Total score (p = .046). In the phenotype analysis, all groups (behavioural variant FTD, primary progressive aphasia and FTD with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) scored significantly lower than controls (all p < .007). VBM revealed an overlapping neural correlate of the mIRI Total score across genetic groups in the orbitofrontal lobe but with additional involvement in the temporal lobe, insula and basal ganglia in both the GRN and MAPT groups, and uniquely more posterior regions such as the parietal lobe and thalamus in the GRN group, and medial temporal structures in the MAPT group. Conclusions: Significant empathy deficits present in genetic FTD, particularly in symptomatic individuals and those with a bvFTD phenotype, while prodromal deficits are only seen using the mIRI in C9orf72 expansion carriers.This work was supported by the NIHR UCL/H Biomedical Research Centre, the Leonard Wolfson Experimental Neurology Centre (LWENC) Clinical Research Facility, and the UK Dementia Research Institute, which receives its funding from UK DRI Ltd, funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Alzheimer's Society and Alzheimer's Research UK. JDR is supported by an MRC Clinician Scientist Fellowship (MR/M008525/1) and has received funding from the NIHR Rare Disease Translational Research Collaboration (BRC149/NS/MH). This work was also supported by the MRC UK GENFI grant (MR/M023664/1), the Bluefield Project and the JPND GENFI-PROX grant (2019-02248). Several authors of this publication are members of the European Reference Network for Rare Neurological Diseases - Project ID No 739510. RC/CG are supported by a Frontotemporal Dementia Research Studentships in Memory of David Blechner funded through The National Brain Appeal (RCN 290173). MB is supported by a Fellowship award from the Alzheimer's Society, UK (AS-JF-19a-004-517). MB's work is also supported by the UK Dementia Research Institute which receives its funding from DRI Ltd, funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Alzheimer's Society and Alzheimer's Research UK. JCVS was supported by the Dioraphte Foundation grant 09-02-03-00, the Association for Frontotemporal Dementias Research Grant 2009, The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research grant HCMI 056-13-018, ZonMw Memorabel (Deltaplan Dementie, project number 733 051 042), Alzheimer Nederland and the Bluefield project. FM received funding from the Tau Consortium and the Center for Networked Biomedical Research on Neurodegenerative Disease (CIBERNED). RS-V is supported by an Alzheimer’s Research UK Clinical Research Training Fellowship (ARUK-CRF2017B-2), and has received funding from Fundació Marató de TV3, Spain (grant no. 20143810). CG received funding from JPND-Prefrontals VR Dnr 529-2014-7504, VR 2015-02926 and 2018-02754, the Swedish FTD Inititative-Schörling Foundation, Alzheimer Foundation, Brain Foundation and Stockholm County Council ALF. MM has received funding from a Canadian Institute of Health Research operating grant and the Weston Brain Institute and Ontario Brain Institute. JBR has received funding from the Wellcome Trust (103838) and is supported by the Cambridge University Centre for Frontotemporal Dementia, the Medical Research Council (SUAG/051 G101400) and the National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20014). EF has received funding from a CIHR grant #327387. DG received support from the EU Joint Programme – Neurodegenerative Disease Research and the Italian Ministry of Health (PreFrontALS) grant 733051042. RV has received funding from the Mady Browaeys Fund for Research into Frontotemporal Dementia. MO has received funding from BMBF (FTLDc).info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P &lt; 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

COVID-19 symptoms at hospital admission vary with age and sex: results from the ISARIC prospective multinational observational study

Background: The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. Methods: International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. Results: ‘Typical’ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≤ 18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (≥ 70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each P &lt; 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. Interpretation: This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men

Watching the Watchers: Surveillance at Work and Notes for Trade Unionists

Workers have always faced the tension of capital versus labour, where an overarching business profit motive dominates the terms of the employment relationship, and workers want a decent and enjoyable life, paid for by their work and commitment to their employer and wage provider. Today, however, the employment relationship is changing, and there is a new type of actor in the workplace. While machines, both analogue and digital, have been used over time to help workplace designers calculate outputs of work and increasingly to replace work through automation, now, with the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) tools and applications, some machines are being given new responsibilities and a level of autonomy as well as being expected to display various forms of intelligence. [Opening paragraph

Advancing arguments on technology, work and the body, in the global political economy

Developing a better understanding of transformations and configurations in global affairs requires researchers in Global Political Economy to take seriously the emergence of forms of technology and their integration into the institutional, social, economic and political fabrics of contemporary life. However, research in key Global Political Economy journals has not been entirely forthcoming in acknowledging and recognising this, over time. Where we see publications that look at areas of technology and the global political economy, what has been consistently missing in Global Political Economy research, however, is the discussion of the direct impact of technology on workers, working conditions, the employment relationship, and social protections, and, as an arguably direct result of digitalisation, new threats for the corporeal and for sustainability of materiality. This debates and commentary piece for the first issue of the Global Political Economy journal argues that the burgeoning literature in these areas can be carried forward by scholars in the field of Global Political Economy