The case for the development of novel human skills capture methodologies

As the capabilities of industrial automation are growing, so is the ability to supplement or replace the more tacit, cognitive skills of manual operators. Whilst models have been published within the human factors literature regarding automation implementation, they neglect to discuss the initial capture of the task and automation experts currently lack a formal tool to assess feasibility. The definition of what is meant by "human skill" is discussed and three crucial theoretical underpinnings are proposed for a novel, automation-specific skill capture methodology: emphasis upon procedural rules, emphasis upon action-facilitating factors and taxonomy of skill

Task analysis of discrete and continuous skills: a dual methodology approach to human skills capture for automation

There is a growing requirement within the field of intelligent automation for a formal methodology to capture and classify explicit and tacit skills deployed by operators during complex task performance. This paper describes the development of a dual methodology approach which recognises the inherent differences between continuous tasks and discrete tasks and which proposes separate methodologies for each. Both methodologies emphasise capturing operators’ physical, perceptual, and cognitive skills, however, they fundamentally differ in their approach. The continuous task analysis recognises the non-arbitrary nature of operation ordering and that identifying suitable cues for subtask is a vital component of the skill. Discrete task analysis is a more traditional, chronologically ordered methodology and is intended to increase the resolution of skill classification and be practical for assessing complex tasks involving multiple unique subtasks through the use of taxonomy of generic actions for physical, perceptual, and cognitive actions

Multiple training interventions significantly improve reproducibility of PET/CT-based lung cancer radiotherapy target volume delineation using an IAEA study protocol

AbstractBackground and purposeTo assess the impact of a standardized delineation protocol and training interventions on PET/CT-based target volume delineation (TVD) in NSCLC in a multicenter setting.Material and methodsOver a one-year period, 11 pairs, comprised each of a radiation oncologist and nuclear medicine physician with limited experience in PET/CT-based TVD for NSCLC from nine different countries took part in a training program through an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) study (NCT02247713). Teams delineated gross tumor volume of the primary tumor, during and after training interventions, according to a provided delineation protocol. In-house developed software recorded the performed delineations, to allow visual inspection of strategies and to assess delineation accuracy.ResultsFollowing the first training, overall concordance indices for 3 repetitive cases increased from 0.57±0.07 to 0.66±0.07. The overall mean surface distance between observer and expert contours decreased from −0.40±0.03cm to −0.01±0.33cm. After further training overall concordance indices for another 3 repetitive cases further increased from 0.64±0.06 to 0.80±0.05 (p=0.01). Mean surface distances decreased from −0.34±0.16cm to −0.05±0.20cm (p=0.01).ConclusionMultiple training interventions improve PET/CT-based TVD delineation accuracy in NSCLC and reduce interobserver variation

Accuracy of potential diagnostic indicators for coeliac disease:a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION: Coeliac disease (CD) is a systemic immune-mediated disorder triggered by gluten in genetically predisposed individuals. CD is diagnosed using a combination of serology tests and endoscopic biopsy of the small intestine. However, because of non-specific symptoms and heterogeneous clinical presentation, diagnosing CD is challenging. Early detection of CD through improved case-finding strategies can improve the response to a gluten-free diet, patients' quality of life and potentially reduce the risk of complications. However, there is a lack of consensus in which groups may benefit from active case-finding. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a systematic review to determine the accuracy of diagnostic indicators (such as symptoms and risk factors) for CD in adults and children, and thus can help identify patients who should be offered CD testing. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science will be searched from 1997 until 2020. Screening will be performed in duplicate. Data extraction will be performed by one and checked by a second reviewer. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or referral to a third reviewer. We will produce a narrative summary of identified prediction models. Studies, where 2×2 data can be extracted or reconstructed, will be treated as diagnostic accuracy studies, that is, the diagnostic indicators are the index tests and CD serology and/or biopsy is the reference standard. For each diagnostic indicator, we will perform a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of the sensitivity and specificity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Results will be reported in peer-reviewed journals, academic and public presentations and social media. We will convene an implementation panel to advise on the optimum strategy for enhanced dissemination. We will discuss findings with Coeliac UK to help with dissemination to patients. Ethical approval is not applicable, as this is a systematic review and no research participants will be involved. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020170766

Defining the optimum strategy for identifying adults and children with coeliac disease: systematic review and economic modelling

BACKGROUND: Coeliac disease is an autoimmune disorder triggered by ingesting gluten. It affects approximately 1% of the UK population, but only one in three people is thought to have a diagnosis. Untreated coeliac disease may lead to malnutrition, anaemia, osteoporosis and lymphoma. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to define at-risk groups and determine the cost-effectiveness of active case-finding strategies in primary care. DESIGN: (1) Systematic review of the accuracy of potential diagnostic indicators for coeliac disease. (2) Routine data analysis to develop prediction models for identification of people who may benefit from testing for coeliac disease. (3) Systematic review of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for coeliac disease. (4) Systematic review of the accuracy of genetic tests for coeliac disease (literature search conducted in April 2021). (5) Online survey to identify diagnostic thresholds for testing, starting treatment and referral for biopsy. (6) Economic modelling to identify the cost-effectiveness of different active case-finding strategies, informed by the findings from previous objectives. DATA SOURCES: For the first systematic review, the following databases were searched from 1997 to April 2021: MEDLINE® (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA), Embase® (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Cochrane Library, Web of Science™ (Clarivate™, Philadelphia, PA, USA), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ( WHO ICTRP ) and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. For the second systematic review, the following databases were searched from January 1990 to August 2020: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews ( KSR ) Evidence, WHO ICTRP and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. For prediction model development, Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD, Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum and a subcohort of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children were used; for estimates for the economic models, Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum was used. REVIEW METHODS: For review 1, cohort and case-control studies reporting on a diagnostic indicator in a population with and a population without coeliac disease were eligible. For review 2, diagnostic cohort studies including patients presenting with coeliac disease symptoms who were tested with serological tests for coeliac disease and underwent a duodenal biopsy as reference standard were eligible. In both reviews, risk of bias was assessed using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 tool. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses were fitted, in which binomial likelihoods for the numbers of true positives and true negatives were assumed. RESULTS: People with dermatitis herpetiformis, a family history of coeliac disease, migraine, anaemia, type 1 diabetes, osteoporosis or chronic liver disease are 1.5-2 times more likely than the general population to have coeliac disease; individual gastrointestinal symptoms were not useful for identifying coeliac disease. For children, women and men, prediction models included 24, 24 and 21 indicators of coeliac disease, respectively. The models showed good discrimination between patients with and patients without coeliac disease, but performed less well when externally validated. Serological tests were found to have good diagnostic accuracy for coeliac disease. Immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase had the highest sensitivity and endomysial antibody the highest specificity. There was little improvement when tests were used in combination. Survey respondents (n = 472) wanted to be 66% certain of the diagnosis from a blood test before starting a gluten-free diet if symptomatic, and 90% certain if asymptomatic. Cost-effectiveness analyses found that, among adults, and using serological testing alone, immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase was most cost-effective at a 1% pre-test probability (equivalent to population screening). Strategies using immunoglobulin A endomysial antibody plus human leucocyte antigen or human leucocyte antigen plus immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase with any pre-test probability had similar cost-effectiveness results, which were also similar to the cost-effectiveness results of immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase at a 1% pre-test probability. The most practical alternative for implementation within the NHS is likely to be a combination of human leucocyte antigen and immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase testing among those with a pre-test probability above 1.5%. Among children, the most cost-effective strategy was a 10% pre-test probability with human leucocyte antigen plus immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase, but there was uncertainty around the most cost-effective pre-test probability. There was substantial uncertainty in economic model results, which means that there would be great value in conducting further research. LIMITATIONS: The interpretation of meta-analyses was limited by the substantial heterogeneity between the included studies, and most included studies were judged to be at high risk of bias. The main limitations of the prediction models were that we were restricted to diagnostic indicators that were recorded by general practitioners and that, because coeliac disease is underdiagnosed, it is also under-reported in health-care data. The cost-effectiveness model is a simplification of coeliac disease and modelled an average cohort rather than individuals. Evidence was weak on the probability of routine coeliac disease diagnosis, the accuracy of serological and genetic tests and the utility of a gluten-free diet. CONCLUSIONS: Population screening with immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase (1% pre-test probability) and of immunoglobulin A endomysial antibody followed by human leucocyte antigen testing or human leucocyte antigen testing followed by immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase with any pre-test probability appear to have similar cost-effectiveness results. As decisions to implement population screening cannot be made based on our economic analysis alone, and given the practical challenges of identifying patients with higher pre-test probabilities, we recommend that human leucocyte antigen combined with immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase testing should be considered for adults with at least a 1.5% pre-test probability of coeliac disease, equivalent to having at least one predictor. A more targeted strategy of 10% pre-test probability is recommended for children (e.g. children with anaemia). FUTURE WORK: Future work should consider whether or not population-based screening for coeliac disease could meet the UK National Screening Committee criteria and whether or not it necessitates a long-term randomised controlled trial of screening strategies. Large prospective cohort studies in which all participants receive accurate tests for coeliac disease are needed. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019115506 and CRD42020170766. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Cost-effectiveness of bedaquiline, pretomanid and linezolid for treatment of extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis in South Africa, Georgia and the Philippines

Objectives Patients with highly resistant tuberculosis have few treatment options. Bedaquiline, pretomanid and linezolid regimen (BPaL) is a new regimen shown to have favourable outcomes after six months. We present an economic evaluation of introducing BPaL against the extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB) standard of care in three epidemiological settings. Design Cost-effectiveness analysis using Markov cohort model. Setting South Africa, Georgia and the Philippines. Participants XDR-TB and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) failure and treatment intolerant patients.InterventionsBPaL regimen. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Incremental cost per disability-adjusted life years averted by using BPaL against standard of care at the Global Drug Facility list price. (2) The potential maximum price at which the BPaL regimen could become cost neutral. Results BPaL for XDR-TB is likely to be cost saving in all study settings when pretomanid is priced at the Global Drug Facility list price. The magnitude of these savings depends on the prevalence of XDR-TB in the country and can amount, over 5 years, to approximately US$3 million in South Africa, US$ 200 000 and US$60 000 in Georgia and the Philippines, respectively. In South Africa, related future costs of antiretroviral treatment (ART) due to survival of more patients following treatment with BPaL reduced the magnitude of expected savings to approximately US$ 1 million. Overall, when BPaL is introduced to a wider population, including MDR-TB treatment failure and treatment intolerant, we observe increased savings and clinical benefits. The potential threshold price at which the probability of the introduction of BPaL becoming cost neutral begins to increase is higher in Georgia and the Philippines (US$3650 and US$ 3800, respectively) compared with South Africa (US$ 500) including ART costs. Conclusions Our results estimate that BPaL can be a cost-saving addition to the local TB programmes in varied programmatic settings