Application of Deep Learning Model in the Sonographic Diagnosis of Uterine Adenomyosis

Background: This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of Deep Learning (DL) machine for the detection of adenomyosis on uterine ultrasonographic images and compare it to intermediate ultrasound skilled trainees. Methods: Prospective observational study were conducted between 1 and 30 April 2022. Transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) diagnosis of adenomyosis was investigated by an experienced sonographer on 100 fertile-age patients. Videoclips of the uterine corpus were recorded and sequential ultrasound images were extracted. Intermediate ultrasound-skilled trainees and DL machine were asked to make a diagnosis reviewing uterine images. We evaluated and compared the accuracy, sensitivity, positive predictive value, F1-score, specificity and negative predictive value of the DL model and the trainees for adenomyosis diagnosis. Results: Accuracy of DL and intermediate ultrasound-skilled trainees for the diagnosis of adenomyosis were 0.51 (95% CI, 0.48–0.54) and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.60–0.79), respectively. Sensitivity, specificity and F1-score of DL were 0.43 (95% CI, 0.38–0.48), 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79–0.85) and 0.46 (0.42–0.50), respectively, whereas intermediate ultrasound-skilled trainees had sensitivity of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.52–0.86), specificity of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.58–0.79) and F1-score of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.43–0.66). Conclusions: In this preliminary study DL model showed a lower accuracy but a higher specificity in diagnosing adenomyosis on ultrasonographic images compared to intermediate-skilled trainees

A sex-informed approach to improve the personalised decision making process in myelodysplastic syndromes: a multicentre, observational cohort study

Background Sex is a major source of diversity among patients and a sex-informed approach is becoming a new paradigm in precision medicine. We aimed to describe sex diversity in myelodysplastic syndromes in terms of disease genotype, phenotype, and clinical outcome. Moreover, we sought to incorporate sex information into the clinical decision-making process as a fundamental component of patient individuality. Methods In this multicentre, observational cohort study, we retrospectively analysed 13 284 patients aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome according to 2016 WHO criteria included in the EuroMDS network (n=2025), International Working Group for Prognosis in MDS (IWG-PM; n=2387), the Spanish Group of Myelodysplastic Syndromes registry (GESMD; n=7687), or the Dusseldorf MDS registry (n=1185). Recruitment periods for these cohorts were between 1990 and 2016. The correlation between sex and genomic features was analysed in the EuroMDS cohort and validated in the IWG-PM cohort. The effect of sex on clinical outcome, with overall survival as the main endpoint, was analysed in the EuroMDS population and validated in the other three cohorts. Finally, novel prognostic models incorporating sex and genomic information were built and validated, and compared to the widely used revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04889729. Findings The study included 7792 (58middot7%) men and 5492 (41middot3%) women. 10 906 (82middot1%) patients were White, and race was not reported for 2378 (17middot9%) patients. Sex biases were observed at the single-gene level with mutations in seven genes enriched in men (ASXL1, SRSF2, and ZRSR2 p<0middot0001 in both cohorts; DDX41 not available in the EuroMDS cohort vs p=0middot0062 in the IWG-PM cohort; IDH2 p<0middot0001 in EuroMDS vs p=0middot042 in IWG-PM; TET2 p=0middot031 vs p=0middot035; U2AF1 p=0middot033 vs p<0middot0001) and mutations in two genes were enriched in women (DNMT3A p<0middot0001 in EuroMDS vs p=0middot011 in IWG-PM; TP53 p=0middot030 vs p=0middot037). Additionally, sex biases were observed in co-mutational pathways of founding genomic lesions (splicing-related genes, predominantly in men, p<0middot0001 in both the EuroMDS and IWG-PM cohorts), in DNA methylation (predominantly in men, p=0middot046 in EuroMDS vs p<0middot0001 in IWG-PM), and TP53 mutational pathways (predominantly in women, p=0middot0073 in EuroMDS vs p<0middot0001 in IWG-PM). In the retrospective EuroMDS cohort, men had worse median overall survival (81middot3 months, 95% CI 70middot4-95middot0 in men vs 123middot5 months, 104middot5-127middot5 in women; hazard ratio [HR] 1middot40, 95% CI 1middot26-1middot52; p<0middot0001). This result was confirmed in the prospective validation cohorts (median overall survival was 54middot7 months, 95% CI 52middot4-59middot1 in men vs 74middot4 months, 69middot3-81middot2 in women; HR 1middot30, 95% CI 1middot23-1middot35; p<0middot0001 in the GEMSD MDS registry; 40middot0 months, 95% CI 33middot4-43middot7 in men vs 54middot2 months, 38middot6-63middot8 in women; HR 1middot23, 95% CI 1middot08-1middot36; p<0middot0001 in the Dusseldorf MDS registry). We developed new personalised prognostic tools that included sex information (the sex-informed prognostic scoring system and the sex-informed genomic scoring system). Sex maintained independent prognostic power in all prognostic systems; the highest performance was observed in the model that included both sex and genomic information. A five-to-five mapping between the IPSS-R and new score categories resulted in the re-stratification of 871 (43middot0%) of 2025 patients from the EuroMDS cohort and 1003 (42middot0%) of 2387 patients from the IWG-PM cohort by using the sex-informed prognostic scoring system, and of 1134 (56middot0%) patients from the EuroMDS cohort and 1265 (53middot0%) patients from the IWG-PM cohort by using the sex-informed genomic scoring system. We created a web portal that enables outcome predictions based on a sex-informed personalised approach. Interpretation Our results suggest that a sex-informed approach can improve the personalised decision making process in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes and should be considered in the design of clinical trials including low-risk patients. Copyright (c) 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey dataset on psychological and behavioural consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak

This N = 173,426 social science dataset was collected through the collaborative COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey - an open science effort to improve understanding of the human experiences of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic between 30th March and 30th May, 2020. The dataset allows a cross-cultural study of psychological and behavioural responses to the Coronavirus pandemic and associated government measures like cancellation of public functions and stay at home orders implemented in many countries. The dataset contains demographic background variables as well as measures of Asian Disease Problem, perceived stress (PSS-10), availability of social provisions (SPS-10), trust in various authorities, trust in governmental measures to contain the virus (OECD trust), personality traits (BFF-15), information behaviours, agreement with the level of government intervention, and compliance with preventive measures, along with a rich pool of exploratory variables and written experiences. A global consortium from 39 countries and regions worked together to build and translate a survey with variables of shared interests, and recruited participants in 47 languages and dialects. Raw plus cleaned data and dynamic visualizations are available.Measurement(s) psychological measurement center dot anxiety-related behavior trait center dot Stress center dot response to center dot Isolation center dot loneliness measurement center dot Emotional Distress Technology Type(s) Survey Factor Type(s) geographic location center dot language center dot age of participant center dot responses to the Coronavirus pandemic Sample Characteristic - Organism Homo sapiens Sample Characteristic - Location global Machine-accessible metadata file describing the reported data:Peer reviewe

Stress and worry in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic : relationships to trust and compliance with preventive measures across 48 countries in the COVIDiSTRESS global survey

The COVIDiSTRESS global survey collects data on early human responses to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic from 173 429 respondents in 48 countries. The open science study was co-designed by an international consortium of researchers to investigate how psychological responses differ across countries and cultures, and how this has impacted behaviour, coping and trust in government efforts to slow the spread of the virus. Starting in March 2020, COVIDiSTRESS leveraged the convenience of unpaid online recruitment to generate public data. The objective of the present analysis is to understand relationships between psychological responses in the early months of global coronavirus restrictions and help understand how different government measures succeed or fail in changing public behaviour. There were variations between and within countries. Although Western Europeans registered as more concerned over COVID-19, more stressed, and having slightly more trust in the governments' efforts, there was no clear geographical pattern in compliance with behavioural measures. Detailed plots illustrating between-countries differences are provided. Using both traditional and Bayesian analyses, we found that individuals who worried about getting sick worked harder to protect themselves and others. However, concern about the coronavirus itself did not account for all of the variances in experienced stress during the early months of COVID-19 restrictions. More alarmingly, such stress was associated with less compliance. Further, those most concerned over the coronavirus trusted in government measures primarily where policies were strict. While concern over a disease is a source of mental distress, other factors including strictness of protective measures, social support and personal lockdown conditions must also be taken into consideration to fully appreciate the psychological impact of COVID-19 and to understand why some people fail to follow behavioural guidelines intended to protect themselves and others from infection. The Stage 1 manuscript associated with this submission received in-principle acceptance (IPA) on 18 May 2020. Following IPA, the accepted Stage 1 version of the manuscript was preregistered on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/g2t3b. This preregistration was performed prior to data analysis.Peer reviewe

Stress and worry in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic: Relationships to trust and compliance with preventive measures across 48 countries in the COVIDiSTRESS global survey

The COVIDiSTRESS global survey collects data on early human responses to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic from 173 429 respondents in 48 countries. The open science study was co-designed by an international consortium of researchers to investigate how psychological responses differ across countries and cultures, and how this has impacted behaviour, coping and trust in government efforts to slow the spread of the virus. Starting in March 2020, COVIDiSTRESS leveraged the convenience of unpaid online recruitment to generate public data. The objective of the present analysis is to understand relationships between psychological responses in the early months of global coronavirus restrictions and help understand how different government measures succeed or fail in changing public behaviour. There were variations between and within countries. Although Western Europeans registered as more concerned over COVID-19, more stressed, and having slightly more trust in the governments' efforts, there was no clear geographical pattern in compliance with behavioural measures. Detailed plots illustrating between-countries differences are provided. Using both traditional and Bayesian analyses, we found that individuals who worried about getting sick worked harder to protect themselves and others. However, concern about the coronavirus itself did not account for all of the variances in experienced stress during the early months of COVID-19 restrictions. More alarmingly, such stress was associated with less compliance. Further, those most concerned over the coronavirus trusted in government measures primarily where policies were strict. While concern over a disease is a source of mental distress, other factors including strictness of protective measures, social support and personal lockdown conditions must also be taken into consideration to fully appreciate the psychological impact of COVID-19 and to understand why some people fail to follow behavioural guidelines intended to protect themselves and others from infection. The Stage 1 manuscript associated with this submission received in-principle acceptance (IPA) on 18 May 2020. Following IPA, the accepted Stage 1 version of the manuscript was preregistered on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/g2t3b. This preregistration was performed prior to data analysis

Addressing climate change with behavioral science:A global intervention tournament in 63 countries

Effectively reducing climate change requires marked, global behavior change. However, it is unclear which strategies are most likely to motivate people to change their climate beliefs and behaviors. Here, we tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions on four climate mitigation outcomes: beliefs, policy support, information sharing intention, and an effortful tree-planting behavioral task. Across 59,440 participants from 63 countries, the interventions' effectiveness was small, largely limited to nonclimate skeptics, and differed across outcomes: Beliefs were strengthened mostly by decreasing psychological distance (by 2.3%), policy support by writing a letter to a future-generation member (2.6%), information sharing by negative emotion induction (12.1%), and no intervention increased the more effortful behavior-several interventions even reduced tree planting. Last, the effects of each intervention differed depending on people's initial climate beliefs. These findings suggest that the impact of behavioral climate interventions varies across audiences and target behaviors.</p

Addressing climate change with behavioral science:A global intervention tournament in 63 countries

Effectively reducing climate change requires marked, global behavior change. However, it is unclear which strategies are most likely to motivate people to change their climate beliefs and behaviors. Here, we tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions on four climate mitigation outcomes: beliefs, policy support, information sharing intention, and an effortful tree-planting behavioral task. Across 59,440 participants from 63 countries, the interventions' effectiveness was small, largely limited to nonclimate skeptics, and differed across outcomes: Beliefs were strengthened mostly by decreasing psychological distance (by 2.3%), policy support by writing a letter to a future-generation member (2.6%), information sharing by negative emotion induction (12.1%), and no intervention increased the more effortful behavior-several interventions even reduced tree planting. Last, the effects of each intervention differed depending on people's initial climate beliefs. These findings suggest that the impact of behavioral climate interventions varies across audiences and target behaviors.</p

Addressing climate change with behavioral science: a global intervention tournament in 63 countries

Effectively reducing climate change requires marked, global behavior change. However, it is unclear which strategies are most likely to motivate people to change their climate beliefs and behaviors. Here, we tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions on four climate mitigation outcomes: beliefs, policy support, information sharing intention, and an effortful tree-planting behavioral task. Across 59,440 participants from 63 countries, the interventions’ effectiveness was small, largely limited to nonclimate skeptics, and differed across outcomes: Beliefs were strengthened mostly by decreasing psychological distance (by 2.3%), policy support by writing a letter to a future-generation member (2.6%), information sharing by negative emotion induction (12.1%), and no intervention increased the more effortful behavior—several interventions even reduced tree planting. Last, the effects of each intervention differed depending on people’s initial climate beliefs. These findings suggest that the impact of behavioral climate interventions varies across audiences and target behaviors

Stress and worry in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic: relationships to trust and compliance with preventive measures across 48 countries in the COVIDiSTRESS global survey

The COVIDiSTRESS global survey collects data on early human responses to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic from 173 429 respondents in 48 countries. The open science study was co-designed by an international consortium of researchers to investigate how psychological responses differ across countries and cultures, and how this has impacted behaviour, coping and trust in government efforts to slow the spread of the virus. Starting in March 2020, COVIDiSTRESS leveraged the convenience of unpaid online recruitment to generate public data. The objective of the present analysis is to understand relationships between psychological responses in the early months of global coronavirus restrictions and help understand how different government measures succeed or fail in changing public behaviour. There were variations between and within countries. Although Western Europeans registered as more concerned over COVID-19, more stressed, and having slightly more trust in the governments' efforts, there was no clear geographical pattern in compliance with behavioural measures. Detailed plots illustrating between-countries differences are provided. Using both traditional and Bayesian analyses, we found that individuals who worried about getting sick worked harder to protect themselves and others. However, concern about the coronavirus itself did not account for all of the variances in experienced stress during the early months of COVID-19 restrictions. More alarmingly, such stress was associated with less compliance. Further, those most concerned over the coronavirus trusted in government measures primarily where policies were strict. While concern over a disease is a source of mental distress, other factors including strictness of protective measures, social support and personal lockdown conditions must also be taken into consideration to fully appreciate the psychological impact of COVID-19 and to understand why some people fail to follow behavioural guidelines intended to protect themselves and others from infection. The Stage 1 manuscript associated with this submission received in-principle acceptance (IPA) on 18 May 2020. Following IPA, the accepted Stage 1 version of the manuscript was preregistered on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/g2t3b. This preregistration was performed prior to data analysis