A Hybrid Systems Model for Simple Manipulation and Self-Manipulation Systems

Rigid bodies, plastic impact, persistent contact, Coulomb friction, and massless limbs are ubiquitous simplifications introduced to reduce the complexity of mechanics models despite the obvious physical inaccuracies that each incurs individually. In concert, it is well known that the interaction of such idealized approximations can lead to conflicting and even paradoxical results. As robotics modeling moves from the consideration of isolated behaviors to the analysis of tasks requiring their composition, a mathematically tractable framework for building models that combine these simple approximations yet achieve reliable results is overdue. In this paper we present a formal hybrid dynamical system model that introduces suitably restricted compositions of these familiar abstractions with the guarantee of consistency analogous to global existence and uniqueness in classical dynamical systems. The hybrid system developed here provides a discontinuous but self-consistent approximation to the continuous (though possibly very stiff and fast) dynamics of a physical robot undergoing intermittent impacts. The modeling choices sacrifice some quantitative numerical efficiencies while maintaining qualitatively correct and analytically tractable results with consistency guarantees promoting their use in formal reasoning about mechanism, feedback control, and behavior design in robots that make and break contact with their environment. For more information: Kod*La

Dimension Reduction Near Periodic Orbits of Hybrid Systems

When the Poincar\'{e} map associated with a periodic orbit of a hybrid dynamical system has constant-rank iterates, we demonstrate the existence of a constant-dimensional invariant subsystem near the orbit which attracts all nearby trajectories in finite time. This result shows that the long-term behavior of a hybrid model with a large number of degrees-of-freedom may be governed by a low-dimensional smooth dynamical system. The appearance of such simplified models enables the translation of analytical tools from smooth systems-such as Floquet theory-to the hybrid setting and provides a bridge between the efforts of biologists and engineers studying legged locomotion.Comment: Full version of conference paper appearing in IEEE CDC/ECC 201

New understandings of fathers’ experiences of grief and loss following stillbirth and neonatal death: a scoping review

Objective: To report on research conducted on men's experiences of grief and loss following stillbirth and neonatal death in high-income, Western countries. Design: This review was guided by the following research questions: 1. The impact of perinatal death for men 2. The meaning of the loss for a father's sense of identity 3. The extent to which men were able to express grief while supporting their partners and, 4. how men's experience of grief was mediated by the support and care received by health professionals. Data Sources: We searched the following databases: Medline; PsychINFO; CINAHL to identify relevant articles published from the year 2000 onwards. The searches were run between 1/04/2018 and 8/4/2018. Review methods: A scoping review was conducted of nursing, psychological, medical and social science databases using these key words: fathers’ grief, men's grief, perinatal loss and death, stillbirth and neonatal death. Results: Studies indicated that men reported less intense and enduring levels of psychological outcomes than women but were more likely to engage in avoidance and coping behaviours such as increased alcohol consumption. Men felt that their role was primarily as a ‘supportive partner’ and that they were overlooked by health professionals. Conclusions: Further research is needed on men's experience of grief following perinatal death, especially on their physical and mental well-being. Impact: This review addressed the problem of the lack of knowledge around paternal needs following perinatal death and highlighted areas which researchers could usefully investigate with the eventual aim of improving care for fathers

Prioritization of knowledge-needs to achieve best practices for bottom trawling in relation to seabed habitats

Management and technical approaches that achieve a sustainable level of fish production while at the same time minimizing or limiting the wider ecological effects caused through fishing gear contact with the seabed might be considered to be ‘best practice’. To identify future knowledge-needs that would help to support a transition towards the adoption of best practices for trawling, a prioritization exercise was undertaken with a group of 39 practitioners from the seafood industry and management, and 13 research scientists who have an active research interest in bottom-trawl and dredge fisheries. A list of 108 knowledge-needs related to trawl and dredge fisheries was developed in conjunction with an ‘expert task force’. The long list was further refined through a three stage process of voting and scoring, including discussions of each knowledge-need. The top 25 knowledge-needs are presented, as scored separately by practitioners and scientists. There was considerable consistency in the priorities identified by these two groups. The top priority knowledge-need to improve current understanding on the distribution and extent of different habitat types also reinforced the concomitant need for the provision and access to data on the spatial and temporal distribution of all forms of towed bottom-fishing activities. Many of the other top 25 knowledge-needs concerned the evaluation of different management approaches or implementation of different fishing practices, particularly those that explore trade-offs between effects of bottom trawling on biodiversity and ecosystem services and the benefits of fish production as food.Fil: Kaiser, Michel J.. Bangor University; Reino UnidoFil: Hilborn, Ray. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Jennings, Simon. Fisheries and Aquaculture Science; Reino UnidoFil: Amaroso, Ricky. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Andersen, Michael. Danish Fishermen; DinamarcaFil: Balliet, Kris. Sustainable Fisheries Partnership; Estados UnidosFil: Barratt, Eric. Sanford Limited; Nueva ZelandaFil: Bergstad, Odd A. Institute of Marine Research; NoruegaFil: Bishop, Stephen. Independent Fisheries Ltd; Nueva ZelandaFil: Bostrom, Jodi L. Marine Stewardship Council; Reino UnidoFil: Boyd, Catherine. Clearwater Seafoods; CanadáFil: Bruce, Eduardo A. Friosur S.A.; ChileFil: Burden, Merrick. Marine Conservation Alliance; Estados UnidosFil: Carey, Chris. Independent Fisheries Ltd.; Estados UnidosFil: Clermont, Jason. New England Aquarium; Estados UnidosFil: Collie, Jeremy S. University of Rhode Island,; Estados UnidosFil: Delahunty, Antony. National Federation of Fishermen; Reino UnidoFil: Dixon, Jacqui. Pacific Andes International Holdings Limited; ChinaFil: Eayrs, Steve. Gulf of Maine Research Institute; Estados UnidosFil: Edwards, Nigel. Seachill Ltd.; Reino UnidoFil: Fujita, Rod. Environmental Defense Fund; Reino UnidoFil: Gauvin, John. Alaska Seafood Cooperative; Estados UnidosFil: Gleason, Mary. The Nature Conservancy; Estados UnidosFil: Harris, Brad. Alaska Pacific University; Estados UnidosFil: He, Pingguo. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth; Estados UnidosFil: Hiddink, Jan G. Bangor University; Reino UnidoFil: Hughes, Kathryn M. Bangor University; Reino UnidoFil: Inostroza, Mario. EMDEPES; ChileFil: Kenny, Andrew. Fisheries and Aquaculture Science; Reino UnidoFil: Kritzer, Jake. Environmental Defense Fund; Estados UnidosFil: Kuntzsch, Volker. Sanford Limited; Estados UnidosFil: Lasta, Mario. Diag. Montegrande N° 7078. Mar del Plata; ArgentinaFil: Lopez, Ivan. Confederacion Española de Pesca; EspañaFil: Loveridge, Craig. South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation; Nueva ZelandaFil: Lynch, Don. Gorton; Estados UnidosFil: Masters, Jim. Marine Conservation Society; Reino UnidoFil: Mazor, Tessa. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research; AustraliaFil: McConnaughey, Robert A. US National Marine Fisheries Service; Estados UnidosFil: Moenne, Marcel. Pacificblu; ChileFil: Francis. Marine Scotland Science; Reino UnidoFil: Nimick, Aileen M. Alaska Pacific University; Estados UnidosFil: Olsen, Alex. A. Espersen; DinamarcaFil: Parker, David. Young; Reino UnidoFil: Parma, Ana María. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Nacional Patagónico; ArgentinaFil: Penney, Christine. Clearwater Seafoods; CanadáFil: Pierce, David. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries; Estados UnidosFil: Pitcher, Roland. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research; AustraliaFil: Pol, Michael. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries; Estados UnidosFil: Richardson, Ed. Pollock Conservation Cooperative; Estados UnidosFil: Rijnsdorp, Adriaan D. Wageningen IMARES; Países BajosFil: Rilatt, Simon. A. Espersen; DinamarcaFil: Rodmell, Dale P. National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations; Reino UnidoFil: Rose, Craig. FishNext Research; Estados UnidosFil: Sethi, Suresh A. Alaska Pacific University; Estados UnidosFil: Short, Katherine. F.L.O.W. Collaborative; Nueva ZelandaFil: Suuronen, Petri. Fisheries and Aquaculture Department; ItaliaFil: Taylor, Erin. New England Aquarium; Estados UnidosFil: Wallace, Scott. The David Suzuki Foundation; CanadáFil: Webb, Lisa. Gorton's Inc.; Estados UnidosFil: Wickham, Eric. Unit four –1957 McNicoll Avenue; CanadáFil: Wilding, Sam R. Monterey Bay Aquarium; Estados UnidosFil: Wilson, Ashley. Department for Environment; Reino UnidoFil: Winger, Paul. Memorial University Of Newfoundland; CanadáFil: Sutherland, William J. University of Cambridge; Reino Unid

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

Implementation of corticosteroids in treating COVID-19 in the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK:prospective observational cohort study

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone was the first intervention proven to reduce mortality in patients with COVID-19 being treated in hospital. We aimed to evaluate the adoption of corticosteroids in the treatment of COVID-19 in the UK after the RECOVERY trial publication on June 16, 2020, and to identify discrepancies in care. METHODS: We did an audit of clinical implementation of corticosteroids in a prospective, observational, cohort study in 237 UK acute care hospitals between March 16, 2020, and April 14, 2021, restricted to patients aged 18 years or older with proven or high likelihood of COVID-19, who received supplementary oxygen. The primary outcome was administration of dexamethasone, prednisolone, hydrocortisone, or methylprednisolone. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN66726260. FINDINGS: Between June 17, 2020, and April 14, 2021, 47 795 (75·2%) of 63 525 of patients on supplementary oxygen received corticosteroids, higher among patients requiring critical care than in those who received ward care (11 185 [86·6%] of 12 909 vs 36 415 [72·4%] of 50 278). Patients 50 years or older were significantly less likely to receive corticosteroids than those younger than 50 years (adjusted odds ratio 0·79 [95% CI 0·70–0·89], p=0·0001, for 70–79 years; 0·52 [0·46–0·58], p80 years), independent of patient demographics and illness severity. 84 (54·2%) of 155 pregnant women received corticosteroids. Rates of corticosteroid administration increased from 27·5% in the week before June 16, 2020, to 75–80% in January, 2021. INTERPRETATION: Implementation of corticosteroids into clinical practice in the UK for patients with COVID-19 has been successful, but not universal. Patients older than 70 years, independent of illness severity, chronic neurological disease, and dementia, were less likely to receive corticosteroids than those who were younger, as were pregnant women. This could reflect appropriate clinical decision making, but the possibility of inequitable access to life-saving care should be considered. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research and UK Medical Research Council

Procalcitonin Is Not a Reliable Biomarker of Bacterial Coinfection in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Undergoing Microbiological Investigation at the Time of Hospital Admission

Abstract Admission procalcitonin measurements and microbiology results were available for 1040 hospitalized adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (from 48 902 included in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium World Health Organization Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK study). Although procalcitonin was higher in bacterial coinfection, this was neither clinically significant (median [IQR], 0.33 [0.11–1.70] ng/mL vs 0.24 [0.10–0.90] ng/mL) nor diagnostically useful (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.56 [95% confidence interval, .51–.60]).</jats:p

A prenylated dsRNA sensor protects against severe COVID-19

Inherited genetic factors can influence the severity of COVID-19, but the molecular explanation underpinning a genetic association is often unclear. Intracellular antiviral defenses can inhibit the replication of viruses and reduce disease severity. To better understand the antiviral defenses relevant to COVID-19, we used interferon-stimulated gene (ISG) expression screening to reveal that OAS1, through RNase L, potently inhibits SARS-CoV-2. We show that a common splice-acceptor SNP (Rs10774671) governs whether people express prenylated OAS1 isoforms that are membrane-associated and sense specific regions of SARS-CoV-2 RNAs, or only express cytosolic, nonprenylated OAS1 that does not efficiently detect SARS-CoV-2. Importantly, in hospitalized patients, expression of prenylated OAS1 was associated with protection from severe COVID-19, suggesting this antiviral defense is a major component of a protective antiviral response