18 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Freight Data Architecture Business Process, Logical Data Model, and Physical Data Model
Texas Department of Transportation
Research and Technology Implementation Office
P.O. Box 5080
Austin, Texas 78763-5080Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineerin
Recommended from our members
Integrating Public and Private Data Sources for Freight Transportation Planning
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) stipulates that state transportation agencies
expand their interest in freight initiatives and modeling to support planning efforts, particularly the evaluation of
current and future freight transportation capacity necessary to ensure freight mobility. However, the
understanding of freight demand and the evaluation of current and future freight transportation capacity are not
only determined by robust models, but are critically contingent on the availability of accurate data. Effective
partnerships are clearly needed between the public and private sectors to ensure adequate freight planning and
funding of transportation infrastructure at the state and local levels. However, establishing partnerships with
firms who are both busy and suspicious of data-sharing, remains a challenge. This study was commissioned by
the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to explore the feasibility of TxDOT entering into a data-sharing partnership with representatives of the private sector to obtain sample data for use in formulating a
strategy for integrating public and private sector data sources. This report summarizes the findings, lessons
learned, and recommendations formed from the outreach effort, and provides a prototype freight data architecture
that will facilitate the storage, exchange, and integration of freight data through a data-sharing partnership.Texas Department of Transportation
Research and Technology Implementation Office
P.O. Box 5080
Austin, TX 78763-5080Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineerin
The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study
AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease
Recommended from our members
Kicking down the firewall : an examination of the leadership decisions behind the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
textThe late 1990's was a time of great wealth and prosperity in the United States. With this economic fervor came a new era of deregulation of the financial services industry. During this time, Congress passed the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, otherwise referred to as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GBLA). This law removed the final barrier (contained in Depression-era Glass-Steagall legislation) between mixing investment banking and commercial banking in the United States. The purpose of this report is to explain the intentions of the law's supporters and detractors, to discuss why this period was a particularly ripe time for such a policy, to examine the leadership decisions that contributed to the passage of GLBA, and to understand the motives behind a "new Glass-Steagall" bill today. This paper focuses only on the deregulatory parts of GLBA relevant to Glass-Steagall's repeal. It does not examine the privacy protections, et al. of GLBA at any length. Also contained in the analysis is a brief discussion of whether GLBA's stated intentions have been violated through the mixing of banking and commerce that has emerged in the present day. Finally, this report ends with a discussion on the fidelity of our national debate on banking regulation, and what it means for the federal government to manage risk in American financial markets in support of the public interest.Public Affair