Implementation and testing of a retrodirective cross-eye jammer

One of the few electronic attack techniques that can deceive radars in angle is cross-eye jamming, which mimics the naturally-occurring phenomenon glint. The extreme tolerance requirements of cross-eye jamming mean that a retrodirective implementation is required, but published measurements of cross-eye jamming either ignore the retrodirective implementation or only simulate it. The implementation of a retrodirective cross-eye jammer and its testing against a monopulse radar are described. A procedure for calibrating the jammer is outlined and is shown to be effective by achieving large angular errors. The measured results agree well with the extended analysis of cross-eye jamming and confirm that the implemented jammer is retrodirective. Specifically, the ability of a cross-eye jammer to generate an indicated angle that never becomes zero, thereby potentially breaking a tracking lock, is confirmed.http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?reload=true&punumber=7hj2023Electrical, Electronic and Computer Engineerin

Comparison of Three Carbon Monoxide Monitors for Determination of Smoking Status in Smokers and Nonsmokers with and without COPD

In this (CAMOXI) study, three carbon monoxide (CO) monitors and salivary cotinine are assessed regarding their ability to distinguish smokers from nonsmokers, both in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and healthy people. Twenty-six healthy smokers, 25 healthy nonsmokers, 25 smoking, and 25 former smoking stable COPD patients (age 40–72 years) were included based on self-report (N = 101). All volunteers were measured following a 12-h abstinence period. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of a positive and negative test result were assessed for a range of cutoff points for both CO and salivary cotinine. The prescribed 9-ppm cutoff point of the Breath CO® generates a sensitivity of 68% and 42% for COPD patients and healthy people, respectively. Using the prescribed cutoff point (10 ppm) the Smokelyzer® produces 56% sensitivity for COPD patients and 23% for healthy people. Both monitors generate 100% specificity in both groups. The cutoff point for the Micro CO meter® (5 ppm) generates 88% sensitivity and 92% specificity for COPD patients, and for healthy people 92% and 88%, respectively. The optimal cutoff points depend upon the goal of the test. Salivary cotinine has a 100% sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value over the range of 15 ng/mL through 40 ng/mL for healthy participants and at 10 ng/mL for COPD patients. The prescribed cutoff points for all three CO monitors generate misleading results concerning the determination of the smoking status in both populations. Salivary cotinine measurement outperforms CO measurements and a combination of the two tools is recommended

Disclosing the Uncertainty Associated with Prognostic Estimates in Breast Cancer

Treatment decision making is often guided by evidence-based probabilities, which may be presented to patients during consultations. These probabilities are intrinsically imperfect and embody 2 types of uncertainties: aleatory uncertainty arising from the unpredictability of future events and epistemic uncertainty arising from limitations in the reliability and accuracy of probability estimates. Risk communication experts have recommended disclosing uncertainty. We examined whether uncertainty was discussed during cancer consultations and whether and how patients perceived uncertainty. Consecutive patient consultations with medical oncologists discussing adjuvant treatment in early-stage breast cancer were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded. Patients were interviewed after the consultation to gain insight into their perceptions of uncertainty. In total, 198 patients were included by 27 oncologists. Uncertainty was disclosed in 49% (97/197) of consultations. In those 97 consultations, 23 allusions to epistemic uncertainty were made and 84 allusions to aleatory uncertainty. Overall, the allusions to the precision of the probabilities were somewhat ambiguous. Interviewed patients mainly referred to aleatory uncertainty if not prompted about epistemic uncertainty. Even when specifically asked about epistemic uncertainty, 1 in 4 utterances referred to aleatory uncertainty. When talking about epistemic uncertainty, many patients contradicted themselves. In addition, 1 in 10 patients seemed not to realize that the probabilities communicated during the consultation are imperfect. Uncertainty is conveyed in only half of patient consultations. When uncertainty is communicated, oncologists mainly refer to aleatory uncertainty. This is also the type of uncertainty that most patients perceive and seem comfortable discussing. Given that it is increasingly common for clinicians to discuss outcome probabilities with their patients, guidance on whether and how to best communicate uncertainty is urgently neede

Disclosing the uncertainty associated with prognostic estimates in breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Treatment decision making is often guided by evidence-based probabilities, which may be presented to patients during consultations. These probabilities are intrinsically imperfect and embody 2 types of uncertainties: aleatory uncertainty arising from the unpredictability of future events and epistemic uncertainty arising from limitations in the reliability and accuracy of probability estimates. Risk communication experts have recommended disclosing uncertainty. We examined whether uncertainty was discussed during cancer consultations and whether and how patients perceived uncertainty. METHODS: Consecutive patient consultations with medical oncologists discussing adjuvant treatment in early-stage breast cancer were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded. Patients were interviewed after the consultation to gain insight into their perceptions of uncertainty. RESULTS: In total, 198 patients were included by 27 oncologists. Uncertainty was disclosed in 49% (97/197) of consultations. In those 97 consultations, 23 allusions to epistemic uncertainty were made and 84 allusions to aleatory uncertainty. Overall, the allusions to the precision of the probabilities were somewhat ambiguous. Interviewed patients mainly referred to aleatory uncertainty if not prompted about epistemic uncertainty. Even when specifically asked about epistemic uncertainty, 1 in 4 utterances referred to aleatory uncertainty. When talking about epistemic uncertainty, many patients contradicted themselves. In addition, 1 in 10 patients seemed not to realize that the probabilities communicated during the consultation are imperfect. CONCLUSIONS: Uncertainty is conveyed in only half of patient consultations. When uncertainty is communicated, oncologists mainly refer to aleatory uncertainty. This is also the type of uncertainty that most patients perceive and seem comfortable discussing. Given that it is increasingly common for clinicians to discuss outcome probabilities with their patients, guidance on whether and how to best communicate uncertainty is urgently needed

Cultura e inteligência: reflexões antropológicas sobre aspectos não físicos da evolução em chimpanzés e humanos Culture and intelligence: anthropological reflections on non-physical aspects of evolution in chimpanzees and humans

Trata da história recente dos estudos sobre o comportamento de chimpanzés, enfatizando os resultados das pesquisas, as proposições acerca da existência de 'culturas de chimpanzés' e sua validade. O trabalho problematiza a ideia a partir dos mecanismos de transmissão e aprendizado social bem como de concepções antropológicas e paleoantropológicas de cultura que associam tal fenômeno, entre humanos modernos, às suas capacidades simbólicas e cognitivas.<br>The scope of this work is the recent history of studies on the behavior of chimpanzees, emphasizing research results, propositions about the existence of 'chimpanzee cultures' and their validity. The work discusses the idea based on transmission mechanisms and social learning as well as anthropological and paleoanthropological concepts of culture that associate such phenomena, among modern humans, to their symbolic and cognitive abilities

Does rapid genetic counseling and testing in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients cause additional psychosocial distress? Results from a randomized clinical trial

Purpose:Female breast cancer patients carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation have an increased risk of second primary breast cancer. Rapid genetic counseling and testing (RGCT) before surgery may influence choice of primary surgical treatment. In this article, we report on the psychosocial impact of RGCT.Methods:Newly diagnosed breast cancer patients at risk for carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation were randomized to an intervention group (offer of RGCT) or a usual care control group (ratio 2:1). Psychosocial impact and quality of life were assessed with the Impact of Events Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Cancer Worry Scale, and the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23. Assessments took place at study entry and at 6- and 12-month follow-up visits.Results:Between 2008 and 2010, 265 patients were recruited into the study. Completeness of follow-up data was more than 90%. Of the 178 women in the intervention group, 177 had genetic counseling, of whom 71 (40%) had rapid DNA testing and 59 (33%) received test results before surgery. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses showed no statistically significant differences between groups over time in any of the psychosocial outcomes.Conclusions:In this study, RGCT in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients did not have any measurable adverse psychosocial effects