Reporting guideline for the early stage clinical evaluation of decision support systems driven by artificial intelligence: DECIDE-AI

A growing number of artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision support systems are showing promising performance in preclinical, in silico, evaluation, but few have yet demonstrated real benefit to patient care. Early stage clinical evaluation is important to assess an AI system’s actual clinical performance at small scale, ensure its safety, evaluate the human factors surrounding its use, and pave the way to further large scale trials. However, the reporting of these early studies remains inadequate. The present statement provides a multistakeholder, consensus-based reporting guideline for the Developmental and Exploratory Clinical Investigations of DEcision support systems driven by Artificial Intelligence (DECIDE-AI). We conducted a two round, modified Delphi process to collect and analyse expert opinion on the reporting of early clinical evaluation of AI systems. Experts were recruited from 20 predefined stakeholder categories. The final composition and wording of the guideline was determined at a virtual consensus meeting. The checklist and the Explanation & Elaboration (E&E) sections were refined based on feedback from a qualitative evaluation process. 123 experts participated in the first round of Delphi, 138 in the second, 16 in the consensus meeting, and 16 in the qualitative evaluation. The DECIDE-AI reporting guideline comprises 17 AI specific reporting items (made of 28 subitems) and 10 generic reporting items, with an E&E paragraph provided for each. Through consultation and consensus with a range of stakeholders, we have developed a guideline comprising key items that should be reported in early stage clinical studies of AI-based decision support systems in healthcare. By providing an actionable checklist of minimal reporting items, the DECIDE-AI guideline will facilitate the appraisal of these studies and replicability of their findings

The forward physics facility at the high-luminosity LHC

High energy collisions at the High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider (LHC) produce a large number of particles along the beam collision axis, outside of the acceptance of existing LHC experiments. The proposed Forward Physics Facility (FPF), to be located several hundred meters from the ATLAS interaction point and shielded by concrete and rock, will host a suite of experiments to probe standard model (SM) processes and search for physics beyond the standard model (BSM). In this report, we review the status of the civil engineering plans and the experiments to explore the diverse physics signals that can be uniquely probed in the forward region. FPF experiments will be sensitive to a broad range of BSM physics through searches for new particle scattering or decay signatures and deviations from SM expectations in high statistics analyses with TeV neutrinos in this low-background environment. High statistics neutrino detection will also provide valuable data for fundamental topics in perturbative and non-perturbative QCD and in weak interactions. Experiments at the FPF will enable synergies between forward particle production at the LHC and astroparticle physics to be exploited. We report here on these physics topics, on infrastructure, detector, and simulation studies, and on future directions to realize the FPF's physics potential

Why framing should be all about the impact of goals on cognitions and evaluations

In this contribution, I argue that the heart of framing effects lies in the effects that are exerted by goals on cognitive and evaluative processes. Framing is not just a person’s »definition of the situation«, but is also a selective relationship between person and situation: it thus has a strong impact on who you are at that moment, what you like and dislike, what you know, what you see, what you ignore, and what affects you and what leaves you cold. For high-level goals, framing effects are often automatic; they are not a matter of direct choice but are subject to a complex process of selfregulation in which one frame may be apriorily stronger than another (think of problems of self-discipline) and in which »mixed motives« (combination of foreground and background goals) play a vital role. For sociology, the crucial fact is that this process of self-regulation is largely a social product (including the evolution of the brain under social circumstances). Sociology’s microfoundations would have to unfold its genesis and functioning. Quite contrary to the assumptions of »natural« rationality in microeconomics and SEU (Subjective Expected Utility) theory, this view of self-regulation thus leads to the assumption of »social« rationality.